By our reporter
The legal team representing Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has strongly criticized the recent Supreme Court ruling that overturned the Court of Appeal decision to discharge him. According to the team, the ruling not only violates Kanu’s constitutional rights but also sets a dangerous precedent that could expose all Nigerians to unlawful arrests, detentions, and prosecutions without due process.
The team, operating under the Global Defence Consortium, expressed deep concern that the judgment could erode the rule of law in Nigeria and give state authorities unchecked powers to act outside the bounds of legality.
They argue that the Supreme Court decision undermines key constitutional protections, particularly the right to a fair hearing, protection against double jeopardy, and the supremacy of the Constitution. They maintained that the Court of Appeal decision to discharge Kanu should have been considered final, especially since it was based on the illegality of the way he was brought back from Kenya to Nigeria in 2021.
This ruling has serious implications, the legal team said in a statement. If courts can proceed with criminal trials after a citizen has been illegally abducted or returned to the country without due process, then no Nigerian is safe. It effectively gives the government a green light to bypass legal and diplomatic protocols.
The legal team also warned that the ruling empowers the government to carry out cross-border arrests or detentions without legal safeguards and still prosecute individuals without facing any consequences. They argued that such actions violate Nigeria’s obligations under international human rights laws, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights.
They further noted that the ruling disregards the principle of double jeopardy, which protects individuals from being tried more than once for the same offense. In their view, once Kanu was discharged by the Court of Appeal, retrying him on the same charges amounts to a constitutional breach.
The Supreme Court, in its own reasoning, acknowledged that the manner in which Kanu was brought back to Nigeria may have involved legal violations. However, the court maintained that such issues do not prevent the government from prosecuting him. Instead, it stated that any unlawful actions related to his return could be addressed through civil litigation, not by halting the criminal case.
This aspect of the judgment has alarmed legal experts and human rights defenders, many of whom argue that it dangerously blurs the line between legal accountability and state power. According to the defence team, the ruling weakens long-standing judicial precedents that require courts to dismiss cases when a suspect is brought before them through illegal means.
They warned that by allowing prosecutions to proceed in spite of clear breaches of law, the Supreme Court risks undermining public trust in the judicial system. They further argued that the judgment contradicts prior landmark decisions which held that courts lose jurisdiction when an individual is brought before them in violation of legal procedure.
In their final remarks, the defence team called on both local and international human rights organizations to pay close attention to the ruling and its wider implications. They also urged civil society groups, legal practitioners, and the general public to stand against what they described as a dangerous shift toward unchecked state power.
We must defend our democracy and the rule of law, the team said. If we remain silent now, tomorrow it could be any Nigerian facing trial after an illegal arrest or detention.
With the Supreme Court decision now in effect, Kanu is expected to face a renewed trial on terrorism-related charges at the Federal High Court. His legal team has vowed to continue fighting the case through constitutional and international legal channels.
