Supreme Court Ruling on Nnamdi Kanu a “Catastrophic Failure of Justice,” Says Lawyer

An Abuja-based legal practitioner, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has once again called for adherence to the principles of natural justice and the rule of law in the ongoing trial of Biafra agitator, Nnamdi Kanu, who faces terrorism-related charges brought by the federal government.

Ifedi described the Supreme Court’s December 15, 2023 judgment—currently being used as the basis for Kanu’s prosecution—as a “catastrophic failure of judicial duty.”

In a statement issued on Saturday, the lawyer urged the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), civil rights groups, and the media to highlight what he termed the grave dangers in the apex court’s ruling, with the aim of securing its reversal.

According to him, the judgment endorsed breaches of international law, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, while setting a dangerous precedent for Nigeria’s justice system.

“The case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has become the ultimate test of Nigeria’s commitment to the rule of law and its Constitution,” Ifedi stated. He condemned the Supreme Court’s decision to permit Kanu’s trial despite what he described as the government’s unlawful abduction and extraordinary rendition from Kenya, branding the verdict a descent into “judicial tyranny.”

He argued that the ruling amounted to a legal nullity—per incuriam (rendered in ignorance of binding law)—which stripped the proceedings of legitimacy. “This is not about Kanu’s guilt or innocence,” he said, “but about whether the Supreme Court can undermine the Constitution, the nation’s foundational law, for the sake of one man.”

Rejecting claims that Kanu’s abduction was a “technicality,” Ifedi explained that nullity is the law’s strongest tool to check state impunity. He emphasized that the government’s actions amounted to an international crime—extraordinary rendition involving torture, denial of fair hearing, and a breach of extradition treaties and Kenyan legal processes.

“You cannot build a legitimate trial on such an illegitimate foundation,” he stressed, invoking the doctrine of the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

He cited past rulings, including Ariori vs. Elemo (1983) and Adigun vs. Attorney General of Oyo State (1987), where the Supreme Court itself nullified proceedings for violating natural justice and fair hearing. He also referenced Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution and Articles 6 and 7 of the African Charter, which guarantee due process as non-derogable rights.

Ifedi further noted the June 24, 2025 ruling of Kenya’s High Court, which, like Nigeria’s Court of Appeal in 2022, declared Kanu’s rendition unlawful. He said both rulings were compelling confirmations of the illegality of the process, making the Nigerian Supreme Court’s stance indefensible.

He warned that allowing the judgment to stand would set a frightening precedent, enabling the government to abduct any critic abroad without due process, undermining both national and international law.

“The idea that a fair trial or financial compensation can cure such illegality reduces fundamental rights to commodities with a price tag,” he argued. “When the highest court condones state-sponsored criminality, it places the executive above the law and threatens democracy itself.”

Ifedi called on the NBA, human rights lawyers, civil society, the media, and the international community to unite in condemning the ruling and press for its reversal. According to him, only by declaring the proceedings against Kanu a nullity and securing his release can Nigeria reaffirm its commitment to the Constitution and the supremacy of the rule of law.

“This is not about sympathy for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,” he concluded. “It is about defending the Constitution that protects us all. For the sake of every Nigerian, we must uphold the law.”