A lawyer, Christopher Chidera, has faulted the Supreme Court’s decision ordering the continuation of the trial of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, after the Court of Appeal had discharged and acquitted him in 2022.
Key Highlights:
- Lawyer Christopher Chidera says the Supreme Court erred in ordering continuation of Nnamdi Kanu’s trial.
- He argued that the Court of Appeal had discharged Kanu and quashed the charges against him.
- Chidera questioned the legal basis for restoring the quashed counts.
- He urged the Nigerian Bar Association and International Bar Association to seek clarification from the Supreme Court.
- The lawyer also challenged the handling of Kanu’s extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria.
- He questioned how the subsequent proceedings were legally connected to the Court of Appeal’s earlier judgment.
Chidera, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium, made the claims in a petition addressed to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the International Bar Association (IBA).
He urged both professional bodies to ask the Supreme Court to explain the laws it relied upon in restoring counts in the charge against Kanu that had been quashed by the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered on October 13, 2022, had declared Kanu’s arrest in Kenya unlawful and discharged and acquitted him.
Read Also:
- Nnamdi Kanu Appeal: Defence Team Challenges FG to Defend Terrorism Conviction in Court
- Nnamdi Kanu Rejected Transfer From Sokoto Prison To Abuja, Wife Reveals
- Nnamdi Kanu’s Wife Denies Divorce Reports, Calls Claims False
However, on December 15, 2023, in suit No. SC/CR/1361/2022, the Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal judgment and ordered the continuation of Kanu’s trial, remitting the case to the Federal High Court in Abuja.
While acknowledging that the Supreme Court has the power to set aside a decision of the Court of Appeal, Chidera questioned the decision to order a continuation of the trial rather than a retrial.
He listed several issues which he described as errors in the Supreme Court’s decision.
Lawyer Questions Use of Repealed Laws
Chidera argued that the Supreme Court referred to legislation as extant despite the subsequent repeal of some of the laws under which the charges had been brought.
He said the terrorism charges were originally filed under the Terrorism Prevention Act 2011, as amended in 2013, which was repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
He also referred to the repeal of the Customs and Excise Management Act, Cap C45, in April 2023.
Chidera cited a statement attributed to Justice Lawal Garba in the December 15, 2023 judgment describing the relevant legislation as “extant and existing law that was/is in force at the material time/now”.
The lawyer argued that the legal effect of the repeal and the transitional provisions under the 2022 terrorism legislation required proper consideration.
Chidera Faults Continuation of Quashed Charges
The lawyer also questioned how Kanu’s trial could be continued after the Court of Appeal had discharged him and quashed the charges.
He said the Court of Appeal had allowed Kanu’s appeal, discharged him and quashed the charges after finding that the Nigerian courts had been divested of jurisdiction.
According to Chidera, the Supreme Court set aside that decision but ordered a continuation rather than a retrial.
“The Court of Appeal had not adjourned. It had discharged the accused and quashed the charges. The Supreme Court did not order a retrial. It ordered continuation. Continuation of what?” he asked.
He further argued that the Supreme Court should have addressed the legal implications of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, which the Court of Appeal relied upon in its judgment.
Chidera cited previous judicial decisions, including Abacha v Fawehinmi and Ogugu v The State, in support of his argument concerning the status and enforceability of the African Charter in Nigeria.
Lawyer Raises Kanu’s Extraordinary Rendition
Chidera also challenged the Supreme Court’s handling of Kanu’s arrest and transfer from Kenya to Nigeria.
He referred to comments attributed to Justice Emmanuel Agim in the Supreme Court proceedings, which he said found that agents of the Nigerian government had kidnapped and abducted Kanu from another country and brought him to Nigeria without extradition proceedings.
According to Chidera, the finding raised a fundamental question about whether the criminal proceedings could continue after an unlawful cross-border transfer.
He argued that the Court of Appeal had already relied on the circumstances surrounding Kanu’s rendition in reaching its decision on jurisdiction.
“The Court of Appeal had already held that this same seizure, in breach of the African Charter Act, divested Nigerian courts of jurisdiction,” he said.
Chidera further argued that a finding that Kanu was unlawfully abducted could not simply be treated as a matter for civil damages while allowing the criminal trial to continue.
‘Jurisdiction Cannot Be Created By Court Order’
The lawyer also relied on a statement attributed to Justice Lawal Garba that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, agreement or acquiescence of the parties and that even the Supreme Court cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists.
Chidera argued that the principle raised questions about the legal basis for the Federal High Court to continue with charges that had previously been quashed by the Court of Appeal.
He urged the Supreme Court to explain whether the Court of Appeal’s judgment was considered a nullity or merely incorrect.
“If it was valid but wrong, explain the legal effect of setting it aside on the quashed counts. The State cannot occupy both positions,” he said.
Lawyer Seeks Explanation on Restored Charges
Chidera also challenged the legal basis for restoring the charges quashed by the Court of Appeal on October 13, 2022, and subsequently taking a fresh plea from Kanu on March 21, 2025.
He urged the NBA and IBA to demand an explanation of the legal mechanism that connected the Court of Appeal’s final decision to the subsequent proceedings.
“A criminal proceeding if finally disposed of by an appellate court. The accused is discharged. The charges are quashed. The higher court finds kidnap, called repealed statutes extant, and orders continuation. A fresh plea is taken, conviction and life sentence follow. What legal mechanism connected the final appellate disposition to the new proceeding?” Chidera asked.
The lawyer said the questions were important to the administration of justice and called for clarification of the legal basis for the continuation of Kanu’s trial after the Court of Appeal had discharged him.
