Nnamdi Kanu’s Lawyer Accuses Supreme Court Of Constitutional Violation, Aiding Nigerian Government Against IPOB Leader Barrister Onyedikach...
Nnamdi Kanu’s Lawyer Accuses Supreme Court Of Constitutional Violation, Aiding Nigerian Government Against IPOB Leader
Barrister Onyedikachi Ifedi, one of the lawyers representing the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has accused the Supreme Court of committing a jurisprudential suicide and grotesque betrayal of the Constitution” by upholding his continued trial, despite a previous discharge by the Court of Appeal.
In a statement issued on Thursday, Ifedi said the apex court’s judgment in Kanu’s case had effectively aligned itself with “executive lawlessness” and undermined Kanu’s fundamental human rights as provided by the law.
“We condemn in the strongest possible terms the Supreme Court of Nigeria’s grotesque betrayal of the Constitution in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu,” Ifedi said.
“By overturning a lawful discharge grounded in state-sponsored kidnapping, the Court has: illegally derogated from non-derogable Chapter IV rights; annulled the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, and reduced Nigeria’s judiciary to an arm of executive lawlessness.”
Ifedi argued that the ruling contradicted constitutional protections enshrined in Chapter IV of the Nigerian Constitution, especially the right to a fair hearing and protection against double jeopardy.
“Chapter IV rights are absolute,” he emphasised.
“Section 45(2) of the Constitution explicitly forbids any derogation from fair hearing rights (Section 36(1)). The Court’s invented ‘national security’ exception is a fraudulent rewrite of the supreme law.”
According to him, the appellate court’s discharge of Kanu constituted a final acquittal and should have ended any further prosecution.
“Section 36(9) prohibits retrial after acquittal. The Court of Appeal’s discharge order was a final acquittal — yet the Supreme Court resurrected dead charges in service of state impunity,” he said.
The lawyer also raised jurisdictional objections, referencing international legal precedent against state-sponsored abductions.
“Where a defendant is procured through state abduction, courts lack jurisdiction (R v. Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court),” Ifedi asserted.
“The Supreme Court’s failure to void proceedings rewards kidnapping as state policy.”
He compared Nigeria’s position with international standards, citing decisions in the United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, South Africa, and UN Human Rights Council that all condemn or nullify prosecutions arising from unlawful rendition.
Ifedi further condemned the apex court’s alleged reliance on national security as justification for its ruling.
“The judgment’s ‘national security’ justification is legally dead on arrival,” he said.
“Chapter IV rights cannot be suspended—even during war (Section 45(2)). The Supreme Court has no power to create imaginary exceptions.”
Calling the ruling “morally perverse” and “internationally shameful,” Ifedi said it violated Nigeria’s obligations under international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
He demanded Kanu’s immediate release, reconsideration of the judgment by the Supreme Court, an ICC investigation, and targeted UN sanctions.
“We declare the Supreme Court’s judgment a nullity and demand: immediate release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu — victim of state kidnapping and judicial collusion,” Ifedi said.
“The Supreme Court has shredded Nigeria’s social contract. When the highest court licenses state abduction, suspends non-derogable rights, and voids double jeopardy, it commits constitutional hara-kiri. This judgment is not law — it is tyranny disguised as jurisprudence.”
He also called on the international community to treat Nigeria “as a rogue state until Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is freed and the Constitution restored.”
No comments
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.