Court Ruling Ignored in Kanu’s Case, Lawyer Faults Appeal Process

Court Ruling Ignored in Kanu’s Case, Lawyer Faults Appeal
Former legal team used civil rules to revive criminal case
Hope remains with senior lawyers handling current legal proceedings

One of Nnamdi Kanu’s international legal representatives, Njoku Jude Njoku, has attributed the continued detention of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader to grave legal errors by his former lawyers and executive interference by the Federal Government.

EDITOR’S PICKS

EKO HOT BLOG reports that in a statement issued Thursday in Abuja, Njoku said the government’s failure to comply with the Court of Appeal’s ruling of October 13, 2022—which discharged Kanu for lack of jurisdiction—was a critical mistake. He noted that the government improperly used Order 6 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules, a provision designed for civil cases, to challenge a criminal discharge.

“This was a legal blunder. That rule doesn’t apply to criminal appeals. Using it gave life to a case that was already closed,” Njoku argued.

He also criticised the Supreme Court for accepting the federal appeal despite the illegality of Kanu’s extradition from Kenya, saying the appellate court’s discharge amounted to an acquittal. He cited the 2006 Supreme Court judgment in FRN v. Osahon as precedent.

Njoku further stated that the Federal Government charged Kanu under the repealed Terrorism Prevention Act (TPA) 2013, despite its replacement with the 2022 Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act before the charges were filed. According to him, Section 6(1)(c) of the Interpretation Act 1964 prohibits the revival of terminated legal proceedings.

He added that Section 108(2) of the 2022 law, which allows for the continuation of pending cases, does not apply to Kanu because the case had already been struck out.

Despite the setbacks, Njoku expressed hope, noting the involvement of prominent legal figures like Kanu Agabi (SAN) and Justice Omotosho.