Supreme Court Ruling on Nnamdi Kanu Unconstitutional, Violates Double Jeopardy – Lawyer Njoku
Story written by Uzuh Rita September 8,2025
A member of the legal team defending Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Barrister Njoku Jude Njoku, has described the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Kanu’s case as unconstitutional, per incuriam, and a miscarriage of justice.
Speaking to journalists on behalf of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, Njoku criticized the apex court’s decision that overturned the October 13, 2022 Court of Appeal ruling, which had discharged Kanu of all terrorism-related charges.
On December 15, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed that discharge, ruling that the Appeal Court failed to determine Kanu’s guilt or innocence on the merits. The judgment allowed for a retrial after relying on a stay of execution granted earlier by the Court of Appeal.
Njoku, however, argued that the ruling was legally flawed and dangerous.
“The apex court’s reasoning is logically absurd, constitutionally dangerous, and delivered per incuriam—ignorant of binding precedents,” Njoku said.
He cited key Nigerian legal authorities—Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962), Abacha v. State (2002), and Ogbebor v. State (2002)—to stress that once a court lacks jurisdiction, its proceedings are null and void and cannot be revived.
Njoku further contended that the stay of execution applied in Kanu’s case was unlawful:
- “Nigerian criminal law does not permit acquittals or discharges to be stayed. Stays are only valid in civil or interlocutory matters,” he said.
- “By suspending the discharge, the Court of Appeal preserved charges already voided, and the Supreme Court wrongly relied on that to order a retrial.”
He maintained that retrying Kanu violated Section 36(9) of the Nigerian Constitution, which prohibits double jeopardy.
“Once the Court of Appeal quashed the charges, that discharge carried finality. Treating it as tentative abolishes the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy,” he explained.
Njoku also warned that the precedent set by the Supreme Court undermines Nigeria’s legal system:
- “If allowed to stand, any discharge based on lack of jurisdiction could be overturned until a trial on the merits is conducted. This strips jurisdiction—a constitutional safeguard—of meaning,” he noted.
The lawyer further referenced the June 24, 2022 ruling of the High Court of Kenya, which declared Kanu’s abduction and extraordinary rendition to Nigeria unlawful, involving torture and breaches of international treaties.
“Disregarding this ruling while insisting on a retrial risks international condemnation and possible sanctions,” Njoku warned.
Meanwhile, the case is currently before the Federal High Court in Abuja, where the prosecution closed its case on June 20, 2025, after presenting five witnesses from the Department of State Services (DSS). Kanu’s legal team, led by Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), has filed a no-case submission, with ruling expected on October 10, 2025.
Njoku concluded by declaring the ongoing trial before Justice James Omotosho “a nullity” due to the Supreme Court’s error.
“The Supreme Court’s decision in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu is a historic judicial error. By hollowing out Section 36(9), the Court has exposed Nigeria to ridicule before the international community. The Appeal Court’s discharge should have ended the matter.”
