Amid renewed public outcry over the continued detention and trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, a prominent legal analyst, Njoku Jude Njoku, has issued a detailed public briefing note, outlining the legal missteps that he says are responsible for the prolonged incarceration of the IPOB leader—despite a Supreme Court ruling in December 2023.
Njoku, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium based in London, squarely blamed the former legal team, particularly under the leadership of Mike Ozekhome SAN, for allowing a case that was effectively dead to be reopened by the federal government.
A “Colossal Legal Blunder”
According to Naija Blog the briefing note argues that the pivotal mistake occurred after the Court of Appeal discharged Kanu on 13 October 2022 on jurisdictional grounds, citing his illegal rendition from Kenya. Instead of defending that ruling as final and binding, Njoku said, the defence team allowed the government to appeal using Order 6 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules—a procedure meant for civil, not criminal, matters.
“This was a colossal legal blunder,” Njoku wrote, asserting that by entertaining the government’s appeal, Kanu’s legal team gave life to a case that should have been legally dead.
Misinterpretation of ‘Discharge’
Njoku also debunked the former Attorney-General Abubakar Malami’s controversial claim that Kanu’s discharge did not amount to an acquittal. He cited multiple legal authorities, including the Supreme Court decision in FRN v. Osahon (2006), which affirms that a court lacking jurisdiction renders its proceedings and verdict null and void.
“In Kanu’s case, the discharge was due to lack of jurisdiction—making it final and equivalent to an acquittal,” he explained.
Trial Under a Repealed Law
Another major flaw identified is the government's decision to proceed with Kanu’s trial under the Terrorism Prevention Act (TPA) of 2013, which had already been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) of 2022. Njoku explained that while the TPPA provides for the continuation of existing proceedings, this only applies to cases that were still pending—not those already terminated by a competent court.
“You can’t revive a dead case,” Njoku stated, referencing Section 6(1)(c) of Nigeria’s Interpretation Act 1964, which bars the revival of terminated legal proceedings following the repeal of an enabling statute.
Extraordinary Rendition Remains Central
The legal note also underscores the illegality of Kanu’s abduction from Kenya in June 2021. Njoku referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Dikko v. Government of Nigeria (1987) to argue that a person illegally abducted and brought before a court cannot be tried until they are returned to the point of violation or until due process (extradition) is followed.
“This point was first raised not by Ozekhome, but by Barrister Aloy Ejimakor,” Njoku clarified.
Current Legal Team Not to Blame
Njoku urged supporters of Kanu not to blame the current defence team led by Kanu Agabi SAN, stating they inherited a damaged case that had already been remitted back to trial by the time they stepped in.
“Refusing to appear in court at that point would have led to contempt charges. The legal team is now navigating through a tight legal corner created long before their arrival,” he said.
The Path Forward
Njoku outlined two major legal truths he believes must be asserted both in court and in public:
A case terminated for lack of jurisdiction cannot be revived — that equals an acquittal.
Trials under a repealed law are legally void — especially if the case had already been terminated before the new law came into effect.
Final Call for Unity
The analyst called on supporters to unite behind the legal team rather than engage in blame games, stressing that the real culprits are institutional failures, procedural abuse, and silence from the international community.
“With legal luminaries like Kanu Agabi SAN now on the team, we have a real shot at ending this unlawful trial and restoring constitutional rights,” Njoku concluded.
Legal References Cited:
FRN v. Osahon (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 973) 361 at 405
Dikko v. Government of Nigeria (1987) LPELR-945(SC)
Interpretation Act 1964, Section 6(1)(c)
Terrorism Prevention Act 2013 (repealed)
Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, Section 108(2)
ACJA Section 232 and 396(7)
#FreeMaziNnamdiKanu
