KANU’S FREEDOM DENIED: THE DAY NIGERIA CHOSE POLITICS OVER RULE OF LAW

The Critical Misstep: Nigeria's Failure to Obey the Appeal Court Order on Nnamdi Kanu's Release In the protracted legal saga surroun...

The Critical Misstep: Nigeria's Failure to Obey the Appeal Court Order on Nnamdi Kanu's Release

In the protracted legal saga surrounding Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), one pivotal moment stands out as a turning point that ultimately led to the Nigerian government's defeat at the Supreme Court. On October 13, 2022, the Court of Appeal in Abuja delivered a landmark ruling quashing the 15-count terrorism charge against Kanu and ordering his immediate release from detention. The court's decision was unequivocal: Kanu's extraordinary rendition from Kenya in June 2021 violated international law, rendering his continued trial null and void. Yet, instead of complying with this binding judicial directive, the federal government opted to appeal to the Supreme Court. This act of defiance against a valid court order not only prolonged Kanu's detention but sowed the seeds for the government's eventual legal setback. The very first step the Nigerian government should have taken was simple and non-negotiable: obey the court by setting Nnamdi Kanu free.

The Appeal Court's judgment was grounded in established principles of law, particularly the illegality of Kanu's abduction and forcible return to Nigeria without extradition proceedings. The three-judge panel, held that the federal government had breached Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees fair hearing, and violated extradition treaties. By discharging Kanu on all counts, the court effectively barred any further prosecution on the same charges. This was not a mere suggestion or advisory opinion, it was a final order from a competent appellate court with jurisdiction over the Federal High Court where Kanu was initially arraigned.

In any rule-of-law, court orders are sacrosanct. The Nigerian Constitution under Section 287 mandates that all authorities and persons must enforce judgments of the courts. Obeying the Appeal Court would have demonstrated respect for judicial independence and upheld the separation of powers. It would have also de-escalated tensions in the Southeast region, where Kanu's detention has fueled unrest, sit-at-home orders, and economic losses estimated in billions of naira.

Rather than release Kanu, the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, announced an appeal to the Supreme Court just hours after the ruling. Kanu remained in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS), and the government filed a stay of execution to halt the order's implementation. This move was legally permissible but strategically flawed. By prioritizing political considerations over legal obedience, the government invited scrutiny and set itself up for failure.

The Supreme Court's decision on December 15, 2023, overturned the Appeal Court's discharge but did so on narrow grounds. The apex court ruled that while Kanu's rendition was illegal, it did not vitiate the entire trial because the offenses alleged (such as treasonable felony and terrorism) were committed before his abduction. However, the court remitted the case back to the Federal High Court for continuation, effectively keeping Kanu detained. Experts argue that had the government obeyed the initial order and released Kanu, it could have rearrested him on fresh, untainted charges or pursued diplomatic channels for proper extradition from Kenya. Instead, the defiance painted the government as contemptuous of the judiciary, eroding public trust.

This disobedience became the "lost case" in multiple ways. Legal Precedent: The Supreme Court implicitly criticized the rendition but allowed the trial to proceed, highlighting how the government's initial unlawful act complicated its own case.

It reinforced narratives of selective justice, especially given Kanu's claims of political persecution for advocating Biafran self-determination.

Obeying the Appeal Court order would have aligned with global best practices. In similar cases, such as the release of opposition figures in Kenya or South Africa following appellate rulings, governments comply to avoid institutional crises. For Nigeria, immediate release could have Preserved Judicial Authority: Preventing accusations of executive overreach.

The apex court's ruling, while a win on paper, was disaster for Nigeria Judiciary —Kanu remains detained without trial progress, and the case drags on in a clear violation of court order and abuse of his fundamental human right.

In 1995, the Nigerian military junta under Sani Abacha ignored court orders for Moshood Abiola's release, leading to international isolation. Learning from such errors, civilian administrations should prioritize compliance.

The Kanu case underscores a systemic issue: executive disregard for judicial pronouncements. From the Dasuki bail saga to El-Zakzaky's repeated releases ignored, such patterns undermine democracy. 

The government's appeal, while its right, should not have superseded obedience. As legal expert Femi Falana SAN noted, "You cannot eat your cake and have it, appeal if you must, but execute the order pending appeal unless stayed by a superior court. "In retrospect, the lost case began not at the Supreme Court but at the moment of disobedience. Setting Kanu free would have been a bold affirmation of the rule of law, potentially resolving a crisis that has cost lives, livelihoods, and national cohesion. 

Family Writers Press International.