Judicial infractions in trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, by Onyedikachi Ifedi
Epigraph: “Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.”
— Psalm 94:20–21 (KJV)
This scriptural warning epitomises the conduct of Nigeria’s judiciary in Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case, where justice has been weaponised against the innocent by legalising manifest injustice.
I. Unlawful Jurisdictional Assumptions Post-Rendition
Principle of territorial jurisdiction: It is a settled principle that a Nigerian court lacks jurisdiction to try offences wholly committed outside Nigeria unless explicitly conferred by statute. Kanu was abducted in Kenya and illegally renditioned to Nigeria without extradition proceedings, in violation of Article 12(4), African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Cap A9, LFN 2004):
“A non-national legally admitted in a territory of a State Party to the present Charter may only be expelled from it by virtue of a decision taken in accordance with the law.”
In Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228 at 316H–317A, the Supreme Court held:
“The African Charter, being incorporated into our domestic law, has become part and parcel of our municipal laws and like all other laws, the courts must uphold it.”
Despite this, Nigerian courts proceeded to exercise jurisdiction over Kanu in breach of the rendition principle that bars trial where the mode of bringing the accused to court was unlawful.
II. Reliance on a Repealed Statute
The charges against Kanu have been persistently framed under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, despite its repeal by Section 66 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022.
Section 36(12), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended):
“A person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty therefor is prescribed in a written law.”
The Supreme Court itself has affirmed the principle of legality in Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 at 403, where it was held:
“It is a fundamental principle of our law that a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless that crime is created by law.”
Yet, in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu (SC/CR/1364/2022, judgment of 15 December 2023, per Garba JSC), the apex court remitted the case to trial without addressing that the charging law no longer existed.
III. Denial of Fair Hearing
Section 36(1), 1999 Constitution: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal…”
The trial court (Justice Binta Nyako) repeatedly denied Kanu unfettered access to counsel and legal documents while in DSS custody, frustrating the preparation of his defence. In Ariori v. Elemo (1983) 1 SCNLR 1 at 24, the Supreme Court stressed: “The right to fair hearing is so fundamental that any breach is fatal to proceedings.”
The secrecy of proceedings, exclusion of the public, and selective media access contravened Section 36(3) Constitution, which mandates public trials.
IV. Disobedience of Appellate Court Orders
On 13 October 2022, the Court of Appeal in CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022 (per Oludotun Adefope-Okojie JCA, pages 85–87 of judgment) held:
“The extraordinary rendition of the appellant is a most egregious violation of international law… The respondent is prohibited from further detaining or prosecuting the appellant.”
By Section 287(2), 1999 Constitution: “The decisions of the Court of Appeal shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons…”
Yet, the Supreme Court on 15 December 2023 remitted the case for trial without setting aside the Court of Appeal’s prohibition order, thus condoning executive disobedience.
V. Endorsement of Extraordinary Rendition
Extraordinary rendition is criminalised under international law. In United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1974) at 275, the U.S. Court of Appeals held: “A court cannot acquire jurisdiction by wrongdoing. It must divest itself of jurisdiction where the accused was abducted in violation of international law.”
Nigerian courts, however, proceeded with trial, thereby endorsing rendition contrary to Section 12(1) Constitution, which incorporates treaties ratified by Nigeria.
VI. Procedural Abuses and Case Management Infractions
The trial court repeatedly entertained amendments of the charge sheet, even after several counts were struck out. This contravenes the principle in FRN v. Mohammed (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1721) 211 at 248 (SC), where the Supreme Court cautioned against abuse of court process through endless amendments.
Prosecution witnesses (PW-BBB and PW-CCC) allegedly gave false testimony on oath, yet the court failed to invoke Section 117, Criminal Code Act, which criminalises perjury.
VII. Failure to Uphold Constitutional Supremacy
Section 1(1), 1999 Constitution: “This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
By subordinating constitutional guarantees to executive expediency, the judiciary abdicated its sacred duty.
In Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621 at 636, Eso JSC declared: “In the area where the rule of law operates, the rule of self-help by government has no place… If government treats court orders with levity and contempt, the confidence of the citizenry in the system is bound to be eroded.”
This erosion has become manifest in Kanu’s case.
Conclusion
The catalogue of infractions against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu demonstrates: Illegality — prosecution under repealed statutes, void charges; injustice — denial of fair hearing, legitimisation of rendition and impunity — disobedience of appellate orders, tolerance of perjury.
The Nigerian judiciary, by “framing mischief by law” (Psalm 94:20), has descended into complicity with executive lawlessness, abandoning its constitutional role as the last hope of the common man.
Onyedikachi Ifedi Esq., is a consultant to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium
