Why Nigeria Won’t Halt Nnamdi Kanu’s. Trial Despite Kenyan Court Admission Of Illegal Rendition

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has regretted that the Nigerian judiciary would not discontinue the trial of their leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, despite the admission of the Kenyan high court that the rendition is illegal, unconstitutional, and in violation of international law.

IPOB noted the growing calls by well-meaning citizens urging the Federal High Court, Abuja, presided over by Honourable Justice James Omotosho, to rely on the recent judgment of the High Court of Kenya and terminate Maxi Kanu’s ongoing trial.

In a press release signed by Barrister Onyedikachi Ifedi on behalf of IPOB Directorate of Legal Affairs, the group acknowledged and commended the Kenyan judiciary for upholding the rule of law and condemning the illegal actions that led to Kanu’s abduction and torture.

Barrister Ifedi, however, clarified a fundamental constitutional limitation under Nigeria’s legal system under which the Nigerian judiciary will continue to operate in error.

He said: “Justice Omotosho is legally barred from setting aside or disregarding the ruling of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, regardless of the flaws or oversights in that decision.

“Bound by law, not sentiment,
Nigeria operates a rigid judicial hierarchy rooted in the doctrine of stare decisis.

“Section 287(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) makes it unequivocally clear that:

“”The decisions of the Supreme Court shall be enforced in any part of the Federation by all authorities and persons, and by courts with subordinate jurisdiction to that of the Supreme Court.”

“It follows, therefore, that Justice Omotosho is duty-bound to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu (December 2023), which controversially remitted the matter for trial, notwithstanding the Court’s own admission that Mazi Kanu was subjected to what the apex court called a “criminal abduction” and an unlawful rendition.

“No trial court—regardless of circumstance—is permitted to override, ignore, or set aside a Supreme Court judgment.”

Ifedi cited a case, Rossek v. ACB Ltd., and stressed that lower courts must obey Supreme Court pronouncements, no matter how manifestly bad or perverse they may appear.

He continued: “His Lordship Justice James Omotosho may take judicial notice of errors, and there were significant errors in the lead judgment of that Supreme Court judgement, but it cannot act upon them unless and until the apex court overrules itself.”

He also regretted that the Supreme Court’s judgment failed to address or wilfully ignored critical statutory and judicial safeguards such as Section 15 of the Extradition Act.

The section codified the doctrine of specialty, prohibiting the trial of a person for offences other than those for which extradition was granted.

He further cited Gabriel Ezeze v. The State, which affirms that consent of the surrendering State—in this case, Kenya—is a prerequisite for prosecuting new charges.

The explicit provisions of the African Charter, he stated, prohibited extraordinary rendition—especially as occurred in the case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu—for violating Articles 5, 6, and 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Ifedi noted that Nigeria, being a signatory and having domesticated the Charter through the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9 LFN 2004, is legally bound to uphold these protections, hence, prohibited from engaging in or benefiting from extraordinary rendition.

He emphasized that extraordinary rendition—as occurred in the case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu—clearly violates multiple provisions of the ICCPR, including:
Article 7: Prohibition of torture/inhuman treatment
Article 9: Prohibition of arbitrary arrest and detention
Article 13: Ban on illegal expulsion
Article 14: Right to a fair trial.

“Since Nigeria has ratified the ICCPR (29 Oct. 1993) and is bound under Article 2(1) to respect and ensure the rights enshrined therein, its complicity or benefit from extraordinary rendition puts it in serious breach of international law.

“Why the Supremely Court ignored these foundational principles is a mystery to many.

“This was what gave rise to the strong legal arguments that the judgment was delivered per incuriam.

“Nonetheless, only the Supreme Court itself may declare one of its decisions per incuriam or depart from it, as held in Adisa v. Oyinwola (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 674) 116.

“The Kenyan High Court Judgment Is Morally Binding, Not Legally Enforceable
Although the Kenyan High Court has rightly exposed the illegality of the abduction, its decision has no automatic legal effect within the Nigerian judicial system unless domesticated under Section 12 of the Nigerian Constitution or adopted through a treaty process which is not the case here,” he clarified.

Ifedi, therefore, cautioned the Nigerian judiciary and the executive against using the procedural posture of the case as a smokescreen to legitimize an unlawful process that contravenes not only Nigerian municipal laws but also binding international legal obligations.

He called on the international community, the African Union, and all lovers of justice to note that Nnamdi Kanu’s continued trial is a trial of the rule of law itself.

“The ongoing trial, grounded in a morally tainted and legally questionable rendition, is a blight on the conscience of any nation that claims to uphold justice,” he concluded.

For Diaspora Digital Media Updates click on Whatsapp, or Telegram. For eyewitness accounts/ reports/ articles, write to: citizenreports@diasporadigitalmedia.com. Follow us on X (Fomerly Twitter) or Facebook