A lawyer, Christopher Chidera, has accused the Supreme Court of Nigeria of making legal errors when it ordered the continuation of the trial of detained Nnamdi Kanu after the Court of Appeal had discharged and acquitted him.

Chidera, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium, made the claim in a petition to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the International Bar Association (IBA).

He urged both bodies to ask the Supreme Court to explain the legal basis for restoring charges that had earlier been quashed by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal, in its October 13, 2022 judgment, had declared Kanu’s arrest in Kenya unlawful and discharged him while quashing the charges against him.

However, the Supreme Court, in a December 15, 2023 judgment in suit No. SC/CR/1361/2022, set aside the Court of Appeal decision and ordered that Kanu’s trial continue at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

While acknowledging the Supreme Court’s authority to overturn a Court of Appeal judgment, Chidera argued that the apex court erred by ordering a “continuation” of proceedings that had already been terminated.

He questioned: “The Court of Appeal had not adjourned. It had discharged the accused and quashed the charges. The Supreme Court did not order a retrial. It ordered continuation. Continuation of what?”

The lawyer listed several issues he described as errors, including the Supreme Court’s treatment of the repealed Terrorism Prevention Act 2011 as an extant law.

He also argued that the Court of Appeal’s reliance on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act was not adequately addressed by the Supreme Court.

Chidera further challenged the apex court’s handling of Kanu’s extraordinary rendition from Kenya, arguing that the alleged unlawful transfer should have affected the continuation of the criminal proceedings.

He also questioned the legal basis for restoring charges that had been quashed by the Court of Appeal and subsequently taking a fresh plea from Kanu in March 2025.

According to him, the Supreme Court should explain how a criminal case that had been finally disposed of by an appellate court was legally revived.

“A criminal proceeding is finally disposed of by an appellate court. The accused is discharged. The charges are quashed. The higher court finds kidnap, called repealed statutes extant, and orders continuation. A fresh plea is taken, conviction and life sentence follow. What legal mechanism connected the final appellate disposition to the new proceeding?” he asked.

Chidera therefore urged the NBA and IBA to seek clarification from the Supreme Court on the legal reasoning behind its 2023 decision and the subsequent continuation of Kanu’s trial.

Nnamdi Kanu: Lawyer Accuses Supreme Court of Legal Errors Over Trial

Comments (0)