Lawyer denies alleged plot by IPOB to manipulate Kanu’s trial, says all group wants is rule of law in processes
By John Okezie
Contrary to recent claims that the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) is planning to manipulate the ongoing trial of its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the group has assured that it has no such plan or even the inclination to manipulate justice, warning that the rule of law must be adequately followed in the administration of justice in Mazi Kanu’s case.
In a strongly-worded rebuttal early in the week, the detained IPOB leader’s counsel, Onyedikachi Ifedi kicked against an article circulating on social media alleging IPOB’s propaganda in the hearing of Kanu’s trial.
Speaking to what he saw as the “poverty of legal reasoning in the article,” Ifedi said: “It is laughable that an individual bereft of legal training presumes to dismiss complex constitutional questions with bare rhetoric. The pivotal issue, (namely) can a trial be sustained under a repealed law is the very fulcrum upon which Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case turns.
“The law is settled that no one can be tried under a non-existent statute. In Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 at 403, the Supreme Court declared (that) ‘It is a fundamental principle of our criminal law that a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless that crime is defined and the penalty therefor is prescribed in a written law’.
“The Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, the charging statute, has been repealed. It is dead law. A dead law cannot found a living prosecution.”
Drawing attention to Justice Binta Nyako’s recusal, Ifedi added: “The propaganda piece conceals the notorious incident where Justice Binta Nyako sought to anchor her continued presence on “instructions” from the Chief Judge (whereupon) Nnamdi Kanu rightly schooled her in open court (that) “The Chief Judge is not the Court of Appeal.” If the State was aggrieved by her recusal, the remedy lay in appeal not executive fiat.
“This aligns with the Supreme Court’s timeless admonition in Olalekan v. State (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 746) 793 at 812 per Uwaifo, JSC (where the apex court ruled that) “the independence of the judiciary demands that a judge must resist every external influence… once he cannot decide for himself, he ceases to be a judge.”
“It was precisely this legal humiliation that forced the Chief Justice to transfer the case file to Justice James Omotosho. That was not intimidation. It was judicial rescue,” Ifedi argued.
“On the so-called evidence tendered, the prosecution’s ‘evidence’ is a disgrace to criminal jurisprudence. No bullet. No bomb. No arson. No destruction. Only doctored DSS ‘broadcasts’ that collapsed at the threshold of admissibility.
“The Supreme Court has long settled that evidence must be relevant, admissible and credible in Suberu v. State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1197) 586 at 613 per Adekeye JSC:
“The primary duty of the court is to ensure that justice is done by admitting only such evidence that is relevant, admissible and credible. Anything short of this is a miscarriage of justice.”
Discharge Equals Acquittal
Ifedi observed that “the most ignorant assertion in the propaganda article is that an appellate court’s ‘discharge’ is somehow not an acquittal.”
“Nigerian case law is emphatic that a discharge on jurisdictional or substantive grounds terminates proceedings absolutely,” the legal practitioner further argued.
“In Abacha v. State (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 437 at 499, the Supreme Court held (that) “where a court of competent jurisdiction has discharged an accused person on the merits or on want of jurisdiction, such discharge amounts to an acquittal.
“Similarly, in Ibori v. Agbi (2004) 6 NWLR (Pt. 868) 78 at 106, the Court of Appeal affirmed (that) “a discharge founded upon a finding of want of jurisdiction is tantamount to an acquittal. To try such a person again is to offend Section 36(9) of the Constitution.
“Thus, the Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2022 discharge of Nnamdi Kanu was in law an acquittal. The Supreme Court’s December 15, 2023 somersault, under political pressure, was per incuriam and unconstitutional.”
4A. Section 97 of the TPPA 2022 Cannot Save Dead Charges
“The propagandist also ignores a fundamental constitutional reality: Section 97 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, the saving clause does not apply to Nnamdi Kanu’s case,” Ifedi chided.
“By 13 October 2022, the Court of Appeal had quashed all charges and discharged him. From that moment, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was in the eyes of the law a free man, without any liability whatsoever. Between that date and the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional ruling of 15 December 2023, no charge was pending against him.
“A saving clause only preserves live proceedings. It cannot resurrect dead charges. In A.-G., Federation v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1 at 82, the Supreme Court stressed (that) “a saving clause cannot breathe life into what is already dead in law.”
“Thus, Section 97 cannot retroactively validate charges that had been constitutionally nullified. The Supreme Court’s reliance on it to “resurrect” quashed proceedings was unconstitutional and in direct violation of Section 36(9) CFRN on double jeopardy,” Barr Ifedi stressed.
IPOB’s Legal Status
“The hack-writer suppresses the fact that on 1 March 2017, the Federal High Court, Umuahia Division, ruled categorically that IPOB is not an unlawful society. That subsisting ruling has never been set aside,” the IPOB lawyer lamented.
“Conversely, Justice Kafarati’s 2017 ex parte ‘proscription order’ was void ab initio. The Constitution in Section 36 makes fair hearing non-derogable. In Director, SSS v. Agbakoba (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 595) 314 at 356, the Supreme Court declared that “Fair hearing is the bedrock of our legal system… any trial or proceeding conducted in violation of it is null and void.
“A civil ex parte order cannot metamorphose into a criminal basis for terrorism charges. To rely on such is a fraud on the Constitution.”
Who the real terrorists are
“In the civilised world, it is Nigeria’s ruling elite not IPOB who stands condemned. On 28 July, 2025, the Superior Court of Ontario, Canada, ruled in adversarial proceedings that Nigeria’s APC and PDP are terrorist organisations,” Barr Ifedi further argued.
“Unlike Nigeria’s chamber judgments, this was not ex parte, not manufactured. It was open, adversarial, and reasoned. It is therefore Nigeria, not IPOB, that wears the terrorist label in the eyes of the international community.
“The article in question is the very definition of propaganda: law without cases, claims without evidence, noise without substance. By contrast, the law, when properly examined, supports only one conclusion: a repealed law cannot sustain a trial. (Aoko v. Fagbemi, supra).”
An appellate discharge is an acquittal. (Abacha v. State; Ibori v. Agbi, supra)
Arguing on the matter of ‘discharge and acquittal’, Ifedi disclosed that “as at 13 October 2022, Nnamdi Kanu was a free man in law, with no liability whatsoever,” pointing out that “Section 97 of TPPA 2022 cannot resurrect dead charges. (A.-G., Federation v. Abubakar, supra). Ex parte proscription is unconstitutional. (Agbakoba, supra).”
Ifedi recalled a recent ruling by a Canadian district court declaring the ruling APC and opposition PDP Nigerian ‘terrorist organisations’, noting that by that token “Nigeria’s ruling class are the terrorists, not IPOB.”
“Ignorance may excuse a layman, but when paraded as legal commentary, it becomes dangerous. The writer of that trash piece has only exposed his own poverty of law and intellect,” Ifedi surmised.
