Across the South-East and beyond, calls for “clemency,” “mercy,” or a “political solution” in the case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu continue to echo from leaders, elders, and community groups. While these appeals may be rooted in goodwill, they are profoundly misguided. Worse still, they risk strengthening the false narrative that Kanu is guilty of a crime and now depends on government benevolence for his freedom.
This is not the truth. In October 2022, the Court of Appeal discharged and acquitted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, ruling that the Federal Government had no jurisdiction to prosecute him in the first place. That judgment was final: a discharge for want of jurisdiction carries the full weight of an acquittal. In the eyes of the law, the case against him collapsed permanently.
A Supreme Court Misstep That Damaged the Law
The decision of the Supreme Court in December 2023, which purported to overturn this discharge, remains one of the most controversial rulings in Nigerian legal history. By attempting to breathe life into a case already buried by the appellate court, the justices overstepped their constitutional limits.
Legal precedents leave no room for ambiguity:
- Ogbomor v. State (1985): A jurisdictional discharge is final.
- Okafor v. State (2006): A discharge on jurisdiction amounts to an acquittal.
- FRN v. Ifegwu (2003): No retrial is permissible after a jurisdictional discharge.
By ignoring these cases, the Supreme Court reduced law to politics and weakened public faith in the judiciary. What happened was not law—it was an act of political expediency disguised as legal reasoning.
Constitution Above All
Nigerians must be reminded that the Supreme Court is not the highest authority in the land—the Constitution is. Section 1 of the 1999 Constitution is explicit: any law or action inconsistent with the Constitution is null and void. Even Supreme Court judgments fall under this rule.
Section 36(9) also provides an ironclad protection: no person shall be tried twice for the same offence. Since the Court of Appeal discharged Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, any further trial constitutes double jeopardy—a constitutional violation.
Unfortunately, some judges appear to confuse judicial hierarchy with constitutional supremacy, forgetting that the Constitution binds all institutions, including the judiciary itself.
Clemency Is for the Guilty—Not the Acquitted
This is why appeals for clemency are both dangerous and insulting. Clemency is a privilege granted to convicts. A political settlement is a concession offered to the guilty. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu falls into neither category. He is not a convict, nor has he admitted to wrongdoing. His rights have simply been trampled by a government unwilling to obey its own courts.
The correct and only lawful demand is clear: Mazi Nnamdi Kanu must be released immediately because he has already been discharged and acquitted.
The Real Danger of Begging for Mercy
By pleading for clemency, well-meaning leaders and groups unwittingly undermine the rule of law. They help the state rewrite history and pretend that Kanu’s freedom is a matter of presidential generosity rather than constitutional obligation.
This is not a matter of politics—it is a matter of justice. His continued detention, despite a valid appellate judgment, is a constitutional crime against both him and the Nigerian people.
A Call to Action
This generation will be judged harshly if it allows lawlessness to be normalized under the guise of political settlement. Elders, governors, civil society, and the international community must stop begging for mercy and instead demand obedience to the law.
The real question is not whether Mazi Nnamdi Kanu deserves clemency. The question is whether Nigeria is willing to respect its Constitution.
Until that is answered, his illegal detention will remain a scar on the conscience of the nation.
— Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq.
Member, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium
