Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
A lawyer representing the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, has accused the Supreme Court of committing six fundamental legal errors in its December 2023 judgment that ordered the continuation of Kanu's terrorism trial. Christopher Chidera, a member of the Global Legal Consortium for Nnamdi Kanu, made the allegations in an open letter addressed to the Nigerian Bar Association and the International Bar Association on August 26, 2026. Chidera argued that the Supreme Court’s decision had left unresolved the legal status of the charges after the Court of Appeal discharged Kanu and quashed the charges in October 2022.
The lawyer, in the petition made public on Thursday, August 27, 2026, specifically faulted the apex court for ordering a "continuation" of the trial rather than a retrial. He questioned the legal mechanism by which the quashed charges were restored. "The Supreme Court did not say 'retrial.' It said 'continuation.' That distinction matters," Chidera wrote. "What law converted quashed into alive?" he asked. The Court of Appeal had on October 13, 2022, declared Kanu's arrest in Kenya illegal and discharged and acquitted him. However, on December 15, 2023, the Supreme Court set aside that judgment and ordered the continuation of Kanu's trial.
Chidera listed six "fatal errors" in the Supreme Court's decision. The first error, he said, was that the Supreme Court described the Terrorism Prevention Act 2013 as "extant and existing law" in its judgment, even though the legislation had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. He cited Section 122 of the Evidence Act, which requires courts to take judicial notice of laws previously and currently in force. "A repealed Act is repealed," he stated.
The second error, according to the lawyer, was that the Court of Appeal had discharged Kanu and quashed the charges, but the Supreme Court ordered continuation without addressing the fact that the lower court's decision had extinguished the lis (the legal dispute). The third error was that the Supreme Court failed to confront the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, which is a domesticated Nigerian law that outranks every terrorism statute. He cited the case of Abacha v Fawehinmi, where the Supreme Court held that the Charter possesses "a greater vigour and strength than any other domestic statute". "The African Charter cannot be treated as binding law when being quoted and as decorative language when being applied," Chidera said.
The fourth error was that the Supreme Court found that Kanu was kidnapped and extraordinarily rendered to Nigeria, yet still ordered the continuation of his trial. Justice Emmanuel Agim, in the same judgment, described Kanu's seizure and transfer as "brazen lawlessness" and a "criminal act," but the Supreme Court failed to give effect to those findings. The fifth error, Chidera argued, was that the Supreme Court acknowledged that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or agreement, but still remitted the case to the Federal High Court without ensuring that the lower court had jurisdiction. The sixth error concerned the application of Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 to alleged conduct occurring outside Nigeria, particularly broadcasts attributed to Kanu while he was abroad.
Chidera urged the NBA and the IBA to ask the Supreme Court to explain the laws on which it relied to restore counts in the charge against Kanu that were quashed by the Court of Appeal. He demanded that the legal profession examine the issues he raised. "Show us the law that restored the quashed counts," he demanded. He said the central issue was not the seriousness of the allegations but the legal basis for the continuation of the trial.
The lawyer also questioned the Supreme Court's reliance on the principle established in Madukolu v Nkemdilim, particularly the requirement that proceedings come before a court through due process of law. He cited Justice Lawal Garba's statement that "not even this court can confer jurisdiction where none exists". "If the Supreme Court itself cannot confer jurisdiction, then the Federal High Court cannot acquire it from the Supreme Court," Chidera argued.
The Supreme Court's judgment remains a subject of intense debate among legal practitioners. Chidera's petition has added to the growing calls for a review of the decision, which has kept Kanu in detention since his controversial return to Nigeria in 2021. As the legal battle continues, the NBA and IBA have yet to respond to Chidera's demands.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments