The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium has reacted strongly to an editorial published by Leadership Newspaper titled “Legality of Applying Male Captus, Bene Detentus Rule to Kanu’s Rendition Argument.”
In a statement signed by Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., for the Consortium, the group described the editorial as “deeply misleading” and “a distortion of Nigeria’s constitutional and human-rights framework.”
‘Colonial Doctrine Has No Place in Modern Law’
According to Ifedi, the claim that an unlawful abduction (male captus) can produce a lawful detention (bene detentus) is “a relic of colonial jurisprudence” that has long been buried by constitutional democracy and international law.
He explained that the doctrine is incompatible with Sections 35, 36 and 46 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), and Articles 6 and 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
“The idea that once Nnamdi Kanu is before a Nigerian court the manner of his capture becomes irrelevant is totally wrong and has been rejected by courts in several countries,” Ifedi said.
He cited landmark judgments such as United States v. Toscanino (1974), R v. Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, ex parte Bennett (1994), and Nigeria’s own Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000), stressing that “no court can condone executive illegality without destroying the foundation of justice.”
Courts Already Declared Kanu’s Abduction Illegal
The Consortium reminded the public that both the Federal High Court in Umuahia and the Court of Appeal in Abuja had ruled that Kanu’s extraordinary rendition from Kenya was illegal and unconstitutional.
In the Court of Appeal case CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022, the court went further to hold that the illegality nullified the jurisdiction of the trial court.
“These rulings remain valid and unchallenged. They are the only competent judicial pronouncements on record,” Ifedi added.
Global Bodies Condemned Nigeria’s Actions
The statement also referenced international judgments, including the ECOWAS Court of Justice’s ruling in Kanu v. FRN (ECW/CCJ/APP/06/16) and the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s Opinion No. 25/2022.
Both bodies found Nigeria guilty of violating international law, describing Kanu’s rendition as a “flagrant breach of international norms,” and called for his immediate release and compensation.
Garba Panel Judgment ‘Per Incuriam’ — Defence Team
Reacting to Leadership’s reliance on the 2023 Supreme Court judgment delivered by Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba, the Consortium described it as “per incuriam” — meaning decided in ignorance of binding authority.
Ifedi noted that the Garba panel, made up of five Justices, could not override the earlier seven-Justice full bench ruling in Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000), which affirmed the supremacy of the African Charter in Nigerian law.
“By law, a smaller panel cannot overrule a larger one. Therefore, the Garba judgment cannot displace the binding authority of Abacha v. Fawehinmi,” he stated.
Call for Editorial Responsibility
The Consortium urged Leadership Newspaper to “rise above executive propaganda” and uphold its long-standing reputation for truth and objectivity.
Quoting the Supreme Court in A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007), Ifedi concluded:
“The Constitution is supreme; and any act inconsistent with it is null, void and of no effect whatsoever. The extraordinary rendition of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu remains such an act. Neither judicial misdirection nor editorial endorsement can cleanse its illegality.”
