A lawyer, Christopher Chidera, has challenged the legal basis for the continued prosecution of Nnamdi Kanu, arguing that the Supreme Court of Nigeria did not adequately explain how it restored charges that had been quashed by the Court of Appeal.
Chidera, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium, made the claims in a petition to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and International Bar Association (IBA). He asked both bodies to seek clarification from the Supreme Court on the laws relied upon when it overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and ordered Kanu’s trial to continue.
The Court of Appeal had, on October 13, 2022, ruled that Kanu’s arrest and transfer from Kenya were unlawful and discharged him after quashing the charges against him. The Supreme Court later overturned that judgment in a December 15, 2023 decision in suit SC/CR/1361/2022 and remitted the case to the Federal High Court in Abuja for continuation.
Chidera accepts that the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn a Court of Appeal judgment but disputes its use of the word “continuation”. He argues that the appellate court had not merely adjourned proceedings; it had discharged Kanu and quashed the charges. He therefore questioned what legal process allowed the case to resume and for a fresh plea to later be taken.
The lawyer also raised questions about the legislation applied in the Supreme Court’s decision. He argued that the Terrorism Prevention Act 2011, as amended in 2013, had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, while the Customs and Excise Management Act cited in the case was also subsequently repealed.
Another major part of Chidera’s petition concerns the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. He argued that the Court of Appeal relied on Nigeria’s domestication of the Charter when finding that Kanu’s rendition had affected the jurisdiction of Nigerian courts. He cited previous Supreme Court decisions, including Abacha v Fawehinmi and Ogugu v The State, in support of his argument that rights under the Charter are enforceable in Nigeria.
Chidera also pointed to comments attributed to Justice Emmanuel Agim concerning Kanu’s abduction from Kenya. He argued that if the Supreme Court recognised the rendition as unlawful, it should have addressed the legal consequences of that finding before ordering the trial to proceed. He further questioned the reliance on the Ker-Frisbie principle, a doctrine concerning the effect of unlawful capture on a court’s jurisdiction.
The lawyer also cited Justice Lawal Garba’s statement in the same judgment that jurisdiction cannot be created by the consent or agreement of parties, and not even the Supreme Court can confer jurisdiction where none exists. Chidera wants the NBA and IBA to press the apex court to explain how that principle applies to Kanu’s case.
He ultimately asked the two professional bodies to seek answers on whether the Court of Appeal’s discharge of Kanu was treated as a nullity, what legal mechanism revived the quashed charges and how that decision connected to the fresh plea taken in March 2025. His petition comes amid continued legal controversy over the circumstances of Kanu’s rendition, the charges against him and the judicial decisions that have shaped his prosecution.
