Supreme Court Ruling In Nnamdi Kanu’s Case Is Judicial Fraud, Alien To Law, Says Lawyer Chidera

Lawyer and public advocate, Barrister Christopher Chidera, has sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of detained IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu (SC/CR/1364/2022), labeling it “judicial fraud in broad daylight” and a “nullity from the outset.”

In a statement issued on Wednesday, Chidera said the Supreme Court misapplied precedent and constitutional law in Kanu’s case. 

The lawyer emphasised on what he described as the irrelevance of Dokubo-Asari v. FRN (2007) to the extraordinary rendition of Kanu, the illegality of reversing of the appeal court ruling that discharged Kanu, the inviolability of non-derogable rights of Kanu, and the overriding supremacy of the Constitution. 

Chidera argued that the Supreme Court wrongly relied on the Dokubo-Asari v. FRN precedent in determining Kanu’s case.

“The fact that the Nigerian state once succeeded in detaining Mujahid Asari Dokubo, a man with little legal sophistication, on charges of treasonable felony, does not mean it can apply the same crude methods to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, a highly educated man, fully aware of his constitutional rights, and backed by a global defence consortium,” the lawyer stated.

“The cases are worlds apart. Dokubo-Asari v. FRN (2007) involved a domestic arrest and a bail application decided within Nigeria’s territory. 

“There was no element of international crime, no violation of Kenya’s sovereignty, and no breach of the Extradition Act. 

“To extend that precedent to Kanu’s extraordinary rendition from Nairobi is an exercise in intellectual perversion.”

He further stressed, “This memorandum therefore confronts the so-called justifications of the Supreme Court and exposes them as per incuriam, unconstitutional, and void ab initio.”

Chidera recalled that Dokubo-Asari v. FRN (2007) was simply a case of bail refusal after a local arrest.

“In a considered ruling delivered on the 11th day of November, 2005, the learned trial Judge refused to grant bail to the accused/appellant,” he stated. 

“That was the entirety of the case, bail refusal following a domestic arrest. No international abduction, no breach of an extradition treaty, no denial of hearing abroad.

“By citing this case, the Supreme Court collapsed the crucial distinction between a local arrest irregularity and a state-sponsored international kidnapping. 

“The binding precedent on rendition is not Dokubo-Asari but Dikko v. State (1987) 5 SC 1, arising from Nigeria’s failed attempt to abduct Umaru Dikko from London. 

“That case, and the outrage it provoked, both local and international, stands as a permanent reminder that international abduction strips courts of jurisdiction,” he added.

The lawyer condemned the Supreme Court’s decision to revive Kanu’s trial after the Court of Appeal had discharged him.

“The Court of Appeal’s judgment of October 13, 2022, was a terminal discharge based on jurisdictional nullity. Once given, that order extinguished the case,” he said. 

“The doctrine of functus officio applies, ‘Functus officio means that a Judge is not allowed to give a decision or make an order on the same matter twice.’

“‘When a court has reached its final decision in respect of a matter, such court cannot vary or change its own decision…’

“By reviving a case that was already dead at the appellate level, the Supreme Court committed what can only be called judicial necromancy. 

“A court without a live case before it has no jurisdiction, therefore, Supreme Court of Nigeria sat in Nnamdi Kanu’s case without jurisdiction.”

Chidera emphasized that Kanu’s constitutional rights were wrongly set aside in the ruling.

He said, “Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees: The right to fair hearing (Section 36(1)). Protection against double jeopardy (Section 36(9)).”

According to him, “Under Section 45(2), these rights are non-derogable. That means: They cannot be suspended. They cannot be limited. They cannot be balanced against national security or public order.

“Yet the Supreme Court effectively ‘balanced away’ Kanu’s rights by overlooking the fair-hearing violation of his Kenyan abduction and by permitting retrial after a discharge. This is constitutionally impossible. Non-derogable means inviolable, no exceptions.”

Quoting Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the lawyer reiterated that constitutional supremacy voids inconsistent judgments.

He said, “‘If any other law is inconsistent with this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.’

“By validating extraordinary rendition and retrial after discharge, the Supreme Court produced rulings inconsistent with Section 36. 

“Under Section 1(3), such rulings are automatically void. This is reinforced by Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228, where the Court itself affirmed that constitutional supremacy overrides inconsistent acts or laws.”

Chidera declared, “The Supreme Court’s judgment in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu is not law but political expediency disguised as judicial reasoning.

“Dokubo-Asari is irrelevant. Reversing an appellate discharge is alien to law.

Section 36 rights are non-derogable. Section 1(3) voids rulings inconsistent with the Constitution.

“The decision is therefore a nullity ab initio, judicial fraud in broad daylight. The Nigerian state cannot jail an educated man like Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on the crude template it once used against Asari Dokubo.”