By Emiola Osifeso
Barrister Onyedikachi Ifedi, one of the lawyers representing the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has described the Supreme Court’s December 15, 2023, judgment against his client as a “legal nullity” and “judicial mutiny” against the Nigerian Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
In a strongly worded statement issued on Thursday, Ifedi said the apex court’s decision, particularly its order remitting Kanu’s trial back to the Federal High Court, Abuja, on repealed charges stripped the IPOB leader of fundamental protections guaranteed under both Nigerian and international law.
“This was not merely a miscarriage of justice. It was a judicial mutiny against the Constitution, the African Charter, and binding precedent,” the lawyer said.
Ifedi argued that the judgment of the five-man Supreme Court panel in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu directly contradicted an earlier decision of a larger seven-man panel of the court in General Sanni Abacha & Ors v. Chief Gani Fawehinmi (2000). In that case, the apex court held that the African Charter, domesticated through the African Charter (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, was enforceable in Nigeria and ranked on the same level as Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution.
Quoting legal authority, Ifedi stressed: “A smaller panel is bound by the decision of a larger panel. In Oladokun v. Military Governor of Oyo State (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt. 467) 387, it was clearly established that hierarchy within the same court is determined by panel size. Larger panel decisions prevail. Any Nigerian law, policy, or act of the State inconsistent with the Charter’s provisions is void.”
He added that by ignoring this principle, the Supreme Court engaged in a ruling per incuriam, delivered in ignorance of binding precedent and therefore a legal nullity.
The lawyer further accused the Supreme Court of denying Kanu the African Charter’s explicit protection against extraordinary rendition, torture, and inhuman treatment.
“The five-man panel in FRN v. Kanu ignored Abacha v. Fawehinmi. It allowed a prosecution tainted by kidnapping and torture to proceed, an outcome expressly forbidden by the Charter and confirmed by the larger constitutional bench,” he said.
He warned that discarding the African Charter amounted to “violence to the Constitution itself,” and that “no court of law can stand on such a foundation without becoming an engine of oppression.”
Ifedi cautioned that the ruling carried dangerous implications beyond Kanu’s case, threatening the very idea of human rights protections in Nigeria.
“If this perverse precedent is allowed to stand, no Nigerian citizen will have meaningful human rights protections in cases involving state violence. The rule of law will be replaced by the rule of judicial convenience. The Supreme Court’s integrity will sink beneath the weight of its own lawlessness,” he warned.
According to him, history would remember the case “not as law, but as a monument to judicial betrayal,
the day the Supreme Court of Nigeria broke its own oath and buried the African Charter alongside the Constitution.”
Nnamdi Kanu has been in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) since June 2021, when he was seized in Kenya and brought back to Nigeria under circumstances his legal team and rights groups have repeatedly described as “extraordinary rendition.”
In October 2022, the Court of Appeal discharged Kanu of all charges, ruling that his rendition was unlawful. However, the Federal Government appealed, and on December 15, 2023, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision, reinstating the charges and directing that his trial continue at the Federal High Court.
Despite widespread condemnation from international rights groups, the apex court maintained its position, a move Kanu’s legal team insists undermines Nigeria’s commitment to both domestic and international law.
Rights organisations have also repeatedly urged Nigerian authorities to release the IPOB leader, citing gross violations of due process, international human rights standards, and his deteriorating health condition.
Ifedi maintained that the December 15 judgment cannot stand in law.
“It is void for failure to adhere to stare decisis and for arrogating to a five-man panel the unlawful power to overturn the decision of a seven-man constitutional bench,” he said.
He concluded by warning that the ruling not only affects Nnamdi Kanu’s case but also poses a grave threat to the very fabric of constitutional democracy in Nigeria.
Discussion about this post