IPOB Warns Justice Omotosho Not to Suspend Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial Due to the Ruling of the Kenyan Court

 IPOB Warns Justice Omotosho Not to Suspend Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial Due to the Ruling of the Kenyan Court The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)...

 IPOB Warns Justice Omotosho Not to Suspend Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial Due to the Ruling of the Kenyan Court

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has cautioned that the recent judgment by the Kenyan High Court, which ruled the abduction and extraordinary rendition of its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, as illegal and unconstitutional, must not be used as a legal basis to halt his ongoing trial in Nigeria.

In a statement signed by Barrister Onyedikachi Ifedi on behalf of the IPOB, the group acknowledged the judgment of the Kenyan court but emphasised that Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja is constitutionally barred from acting contrary to the Supreme Court of Nigeria’s ruling on the matter.

“While we acknowledge and commend the Kenyan judiciary for upholding the rule of law and condemning the illegal actions that led to our leader’s abduction and torture, we find it necessary to clarify a fundamental constitutional limitation under Nigeria’s legal system,” the statement read.

Citing Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution, IPOB stressed that all subordinate courts are required to comply with the decisions of the Supreme Court.

“The decisions of the Supreme Court shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court,” IPOB quoted the constitution as stating.

The group noted that the Supreme Court had remitted the matter to the lower court for trial despite acknowledging that Kanu was subjected to what it termed a “criminal abduction” and unlawful rendition.

According to IPOB, Justice Omotosho is duty-bound to abide by that judgment, regardless of its controversy or flaws.

“No trial court, regardless of circumstance, is permitted to override, ignore, or set aside a Supreme Court judgment,” IPOB said.

“His Lordship Justice James Omotosho may take judicial notice of errors, and there were significant errors in the lead judgment, but it cannot act upon them unless and until the apex court overrules itself.”

The group referenced Rossek v. ACB Ltd (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt. 312) 382, which held that lower courts must obey Supreme Court pronouncements, “no matter how manifestly bad or perverse they may appear.”

IPOB accused the Supreme Court of ignoring critical safeguards that should have voided Kanu’s trial.

These include “Section 15 of Nigeria’s Extradition Act, which prohibits prosecution for offences outside the terms of extradition;

“The precedent in Gabriel Ezeze v. The State (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 875) 433, which mandates the consent of the surrendering state, Kenya in this case, for any new charges;

“Violations of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, especially Articles 5, 6, and 7 prohibiting torture, unlawful detention, and denial of fair trial;

“Breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Nigeria is a party, including Articles 7, 9, 13, and 14.”

“Why the Supreme Court ignored these foundational principles is a mystery to many,” IPOB said, adding that strong legal arguments exist that the judgment was given per incuriam, without reference to relevant legal principles or statutes.

Nonetheless, IPOB conceded that only the Supreme Court itself can reverse or overrule such a decision, citing Adisa v. Oyinwola (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 674) 116.

The group argued that while the ruling of the Kenyan High Court was significant, it carries no binding authority in Nigerian courts unless domesticated through treaty ratification under Section 12 of the Constitution.

“Although the Kenyan High Court has rightly exposed the illegality of the abduction, its decision has no automatic legal effect within the Nigerian judicial system,” IPOB stated.

IPOB reiterated its stance that the Federal High Court in Abuja is not the proper venue to challenge the Supreme Court’s ruling, and that any effort to halt the trial must proceed through appellate channels, either within Nigeria or at international judicial forums.

“We caution the Nigerian judiciary and the executive against using the procedural posture of the case as a smokescreen to legitimise an unlawful process that contravenes not only Nigerian municipal laws but also binding international legal obligations,” IPOB stressed.

“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s continued trial is a trial of the rule of law itself.”

The group called on the international community, the African Union, and human rights bodies to take notice and pressure Nigerian authorities to comply with international legal standards.