Despite a 2022 appellate court ruling discharging him of all charges, the continued incarceration of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has been described as the result of avoidable legal blunders and constitutional overreach by the Nigerian federal authorities.
This position was advanced by Njoku Jude Njoku, a prominent member of Kanu’s international legal consortium, who issued a detailed statement to journalists in Abuja. According to Njoku, a series of procedural and strategic misjudgments by Kanu’s former legal team opened the door for the federal government to exploit legal technicalities and keep the IPOB leader in detention—despite clear court pronouncements.
Njoku was particularly critical of the failure to act on the Court of Appeal judgment delivered on October 13, 2022, which held that Nigeria lacked jurisdiction to try Kanu due to the circumstances of his extraordinary rendition from Kenya. He argued that the appellate court’s ruling should have brought the case to a final close, equating it to an acquittal in accordance with established legal precedents.
“That discharge wasn’t procedural—it was substantive. It was based on jurisdiction, and in law, that ends the matter. Yet, it was ignored,” Njoku stressed.
The legal practitioner faulted the federal government’s use of Order 6 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, which applies strictly to civil matters, to challenge a discharge from a criminal case. He described this as a deliberate distortion of legal procedure, made worse by the inaction of the defence at the time.
“It was a colossal blunder to entertain a civil appeal mechanism in a criminal case. By not opposing this, the previous legal team allowed a concluded case to be re-opened,” he stated, making direct reference to senior counsel Mike Ozekhome SAN.
Njoku further criticised the Supreme Court’s willingness to entertain the federal government’s appeal, stating that it disregarded the illegality of Kanu’s rendition from Kenya, which itself undermines Nigeria’s claim to jurisdiction.
He also pointed to another legal misstep—the government’s reliance on the repealed Terrorism Prevention Act (TPA) 2013 to file new charges. He argued that this was done even after the law had been replaced by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, which came into effect in May 2022.
While Section 108(2) of the new legislation allows the continuation of pending cases, Njoku maintained that this provision does not apply in Kanu’s situation since the case had already been dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
“A repealed law cannot be used to file charges, and a terminated case cannot be revived. These are basic legal truths supported by Section 6(1)(c) of the Interpretation Act, 1964,” Njoku asserted.
He expressed empathy toward the current defence team, noting that they are working to correct deeply embedded errors that have constrained their ability to secure Kanu’s release. However, he affirmed that the central argument remains unassailable: a case that has been lawfully discharged cannot be reopened, nor can a person be tried under a law that no longer exists.
Beyond legal technicalities, Njoku called on IPOB supporters and the broader public to remain focused on the systemic issues at stake.
“This is bigger than one man. It’s about the misuse of civil rules to control criminal proceedings, the dangerous precedent of applying repealed laws retroactively, the silence of international stakeholders, and the unchecked expansion of executive authority over judicial decisions,” he warned.
In conclusion, Njoku expressed cautious optimism that justice could still be achieved, particularly with the involvement of experienced legal minds like Kanu Agabi SAN and under the watch of Justice Omotosho.
“Their presence gives us hope—not just for Kanu’s freedom, but for the restoration of the rule of law in Nigeria,” he said.