Stephen Ukandu, Umuahia
A group known as the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium has urged development partners and the international community to make respect for the rule of law and compliance with court orders a precondition for Nigeria to benefit from foreign aid.
The group also called for global solidarity for the planned October 20 peaceful rally in Abuja, being championed by rights activist, Omoyele Sowore, to demand the unconditional release of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
In a statement issued on Monday and signed by its Co-Chair, Dr. Idawarifa Ebirien, the group described Kanu’s continued detention and trial as an “abuse of court processes and a travesty of justice,” noting that the IPOB leader had already been acquitted by the Court of Appeal in Abuja on October 13, 2022.
“On October 13, 2022, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, delivered a landmark unanimous judgment in Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu (Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CR/625C/2018), discharging and acquitting Kanu on all counts in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015.
“The panel unequivocally struck out the charges, affirmed the Federal High Court’s lack of jurisdiction ab initio due to Kanu’s unlawful rendition from Kenya, and vindicated his presumption of innocence under Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution.
“This was no mere procedural hiccup; it was a total extinguishment of the prosecution’s claims, leaving no subsisting charge, no valid remand order, and no enforceable judicial process against Kanu anywhere in Nigeria.”
The group said Kanu’s “ongoing persecution exemplifies a grotesque perversion of Nigeria’s judicial system, propped up by executive lawlessness,” and condemned what it called the “resurrection of his trial” after the appellate court had discharged him.
It also decried the slow pace of the ongoing proceedings and the Federal Government’s refusal to release Kanu to attend to his deteriorating health.
The consortium called on the international community, human rights bodies, and global leaders to demand Kanu’s immediate release, an end to what it termed a “sham trial,” and accountability for those who have subverted justice.
According to the statement, “Kanu’s ordeal is not an isolated injustice but a canary in the coal mine of Nigeria’s eroding rule of law.” The group argued that the rendition and trial of a non-violent activist violated international law.
It demanded the enforcement of Kanu’s presumption of innocence and the quashing of his ongoing trial, insisting that his immediate release was long overdue.
The group further urged the United Nations, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate alleged judicial corruption and “rendition crimes” connected to Kanu’s case.
It also called for a probe into the conduct of Nigeria’s security agencies for alleged contempt and bias in handling court orders relating to Kanu.
Faulting his continued detention despite the appellate court’s ruling, the statement added:
“For the critical eight days from October 14 to 20, 2022, the prosecution filed its notice of appeal but secured no stay of execution. The judgment thus took immediate, self-executing effect, vaporizing the case file and crystallizing Kanu’s liberty as a matter of law.
“During this vacuum, no pending proceeding existed to invoke the savings clause under Section 98(3) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, which had already repealed the underpinning Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011 (as amended in 2013) on May 12, 2022.
“The 2011/2013 Act found no living application to ‘save,’ rendering any reliance on it thereafter a statutory nullity. Kanu’s continued detention by the Department of State Services (DSS) transitioned from lawful custody to outright contempt, as no extant order justified it.
“As the Supreme Court held in FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 113, once a criminal trial is void, nothing stands to be stayed — a principle that exposes the prosecution’s later maneuvers as futile necromancy.”
The group maintained that the Supreme Court’s December 15, 2023 ruling — which set aside the discharge and ordered a de novo trial on seven counts — could not revive a repealed law.
“That remit breathed procedural life into the husk of proceedings but wielded no power to reanimate the statutory grave of the 2011/2013 Act, repealed 19 months prior,” the statement added.
