Lawyer Criticizes Supreme Court’s Remittal as Constitutional Heresy and Judicial Insurbordination.
Lawyer Criticizes Supreme Court’s Remittal as Constitutional Heresy and Judicial Insurbordination.
A Nigerian lawyer, Barrister Njoku Jude Njoku, has criticized the Supreme Court for remitting the terrorism trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of IPOB, after Kanu was acquitted by the Court of Appeal. Njoku, who represents the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, argued that the apex court’s decision was legally flawed and unconstitutional.
Kanu’s trial has been a contentious issue, especially since he refused to defend himself after the Nigerian government closed its case, insisting he has no case to answer. His legal team maintains that his October 13, 2022, acquittal by the Court of Appeal nullified the ongoing trial. However, on December 15, 2023, the Supreme Court ordered the case to restart, a move Njoku described as a constitutional error and a violation of the doctrine of finality of appellate discharge.
Njoku contended that once the Court of Appeal discharged Kanu, he became constitutionally immune from retrial for the same offences, citing legal precedents from Nigeria, England, Canada, and Australia. He emphasized that the Nigerian Constitution, specifically Section 36(9), confers absolute immunity on individuals discharged by courts of competent jurisdiction. The lawyer argued that the Supreme Court’s remittal disregarded this immunity and the finality principle, which is recognized globally.
He also condemned the Supreme Court panel that remitted Kanu’s case, asserting that they overruled binding constitutional jurisprudence, including decisions by a full seven-member bench of the Supreme Court. Njoku described this as judicial insubordination and an act of constitutional overreach, which undermines the integrity of Nigeria’s judicial hierarchy.
In conclusion, Njoku described the Supreme Court’s remittal as void ab initio, asserting that it violates constitutional principles, the rule of law, and international legal standards, thereby endangering Kanu’s constitutional rights and the integrity of Nigeria’s judiciary.
