A human rights lawyer, Barr. Christopher Chidera, has faulted the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of the Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu, describing it as unconstitutional and inconsistent with established legal precedents.
In a statement released on Wednesday, Chidera argued that the apex court wrongly relied on the case of Dokubo-Asari v. FRN (2007) in upholding Kanu’s continued trial, insisting that the circumstances were entirely different.
“Dokubo-Asari is Irrelevant”
According to Chidera, the Dokubo-Asari case only involved a domestic arrest and bail application within Nigeria’s territory, while Kanu’s matter arose from an extraordinary rendition from Kenya, which violated both international law and Nigeria’s Extradition Act.
“The precedent that applies here is Dikko v. State (1987), where Nigeria’s attempt to abduct Umaru Dikko from London was condemned internationally. That case showed clearly that courts lose jurisdiction where extraordinary rendition occurs,” he said.
Court of Appeal Discharge Should Have Stood
The lawyer further criticized the Supreme Court for reversing the Court of Appeal’s October 2022 decision, which had discharged Kanu.
“That discharge was based on jurisdictional nullity and was final. By reviving a concluded matter, the Supreme Court acted outside its powers. A court that has become functus officio cannot reopen a dead case,” Chidera stated.
Violation of Fundamental Rights
He also maintained that Kanu’s constitutional rights to fair hearing and protection against double jeopardy under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution are non-derogable and cannot be suspended under any circumstance.
“The Supreme Court effectively allowed those rights to be sacrificed in the name of national security, which the Constitution does not permit,” he said.
Constitutional Supremacy Ignored
Chidera noted that Section 1(3) of the Constitution voids any law or action inconsistent with its provisions, adding that the judgment runs contrary to this principle.
He referenced Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000), where the court itself affirmed that the Constitution overrides all other laws.
“A Political Judgment”
“The judgment is a political decision dressed as law. It undermines Nigeria’s credibility before international bodies and risks eroding faith in our justice system,” Chidera said.
He called on professional bodies, including the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the National Judicial Council (NJC), to re-examine the ruling and uphold the integrity of the judiciary.
