Abuja, September 15, 2025 – A constitutional lawyer, Njoku Jude Njoku, has faulted the Supreme Court’s ruling on the case of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, saying the judgment permitting a retrial contradicts the Nigerian Constitution and established legal precedents.
Njoku, in a statement issued on Monday, argued that the apex court’s interpretation of the principle of double jeopardy was flawed and dangerous for Nigeria’s justice system.
Citing Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution, he noted that no person who has been tried and acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction should be retried for the same offence, except upon the order of a “superior court of record.” He stressed that this phrase refers to all courts of record listed under Section 6(5), including High Courts, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court — not merely a higher court in judicial ranking.
He further referenced the 2016 decision in Dikko v. State, where the Supreme Court held that once a trial is declared a nullity, the accused is discharged and acquitted, and the matter cannot be reopened. According to him, the Court of Appeal’s October 2022 discharge of Kanu effectively ended his legal jeopardy.
“The order for a retrial after a discharge is unconstitutional. Jurisdiction, once absent, cannot be manufactured by decree,” Njoku stated.
The lawyer also dismissed any possibility of filing fresh charges against Kanu, pointing out that the law under which he was tried — the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 — had been repealed and cannot sustain new charges.
He described the Supreme Court’s ruling in FRN v. Kanu as inconsistent with constitutional safeguards and past precedents, warning that such contradictions erode public confidence in the judiciary.
