Human Rights Lawyer Faults Supreme Court Ruling in Nnamdi Kanu’s Case, Calls Judgment “Judicial Fraud”

Human rights lawyer and public advocate, Barrister Christopher Chidera, has strongly criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu (SC/CR/1364/2022), describing it as unconstitutional, per incuriam, and “judicial fraud in broad daylight.”

In a detailed memorandum released on Wednesday, Chidera dismantled the legal justifications used by the apex court in affirming the federal government’s prosecution of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader. He argued that the judgment misapplied precedent, disregarded constitutional supremacy, and violated Kanu’s non-derogable rights.

Dokubo-Asari Case ‘Irrelevant’

The lawyer faulted the Supreme Court’s reliance on Dokubo-Asari v. FRN (2007), a case which upheld the refusal of bail to Niger Delta activist Asari Dokubo. He stressed that unlike Kanu, Dokubo was arrested domestically without any element of international abduction.

“To extend that precedent to Kanu’s extraordinary rendition from Nairobi is an exercise in intellectual perversion,” Chidera stated, noting that the correct precedent should have been Dikko v. State (1987), which condemned Nigeria’s attempted abduction of Umaru Dikko from London.

Reversal of Court of Appeal Decision

Chidera also argued that the Supreme Court erred in overturning the Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2022 judgment, which had discharged Kanu of all charges. He said the appellate ruling was a terminal discharge based on lack of jurisdiction, and reviving the case amounted to “judicial necromancy.”

“A court without a live case before it has no jurisdiction,” he said.

Violation of Non-Derogable Rights

According to the memorandum, the Supreme Court’s ruling undermined Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to fair hearing and protection against double jeopardy. Chidera emphasized that these rights are non-derogable under Section 45(2), meaning they cannot be suspended or limited even in the interest of national security.

Constitutional Supremacy

Citing Section 1(3) of the Constitution, Chidera said any ruling inconsistent with constitutional provisions is automatically void. He added that the apex court’s decision contradicts its own precedent in Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000), which upheld the supremacy of the Constitution.

Conclusion

The lawyer concluded that the Supreme Court’s ruling was not based on law but on “political expediency disguised as judicial reasoning.”

“The Nigerian state cannot jail an educated man like Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on the crude template it once used against Asari Dokubo,” he declared.

Chidera has recommended that his memorandum be presented before Nigerian courts, the Nigerian Bar Association, the National Judicial Council, and international bodies such as the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights.