Supreme Court Erred by Remitting Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial – Lawyer

A legal practitioner, Barrister Njoku Jude Njoku, has faulted the Supreme Court’s decision to remit the terrorism trial of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, back to the Federal High Court after his earlier acquittal by the Court of Appeal.

Njoku, who serves as Consultant to the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, made this known in a statement issued in Abuja. The comment follows Kanu’s continued refusal to open his defence after the Nigerian government closed its case against him.

Kanu maintains that the prosecution has no case, arguing through his lawyers that his acquittal by the Court of Appeal on October 13, 2022, nullified any further trial.

In the statement titled “A Devastating Critique: The Nigerian Supreme Court’s Unlawful Remittal of Nnamdi Kanu’s Case,” Njoku described the apex court’s December 15, 2023, ruling as a “constitutional perversity” that violated the doctrine of finality of appellate discharge.

According to him, once the Court of Appeal discharged Kanu, the case was constitutionally concluded.

“The Supreme Court’s decision purporting to remit a charge already extinguished by the Court of Appeal’s lawful discharge constitutes a blatant constitutional perversity that offends the universal doctrine of finality,” he said.

Njoku argued that Section 36(9) of the Nigerian Constitution grants immunity to anyone discharged by a competent court, making retrial for the same offences unconstitutional. He cited several legal precedents, including FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) and Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000), to support his claim that the prosecution lost jurisdiction to retry Kanu once the appellate court discharged him.

The lawyer further accused the Supreme Court panel of violating established constitutional and common-law principles by remitting the case without overturning the finding of Kanu’s unlawful rendition or introducing new evidence.

He also faulted the five-member panel for “judicial insubordination,” alleging it overturned an African Charter precedent set by a seven-member constitutional bench—an act he described as unprecedented and unconstitutional.

Njoku concluded that the Supreme Court’s ruling “undermines the supremacy of the Constitution” and renders the appellate discharge of October 2022 still binding, insisting that Kanu “stands immune” from further prosecution.