A lawyer representing the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, Christopher Chidera, has accused the Supreme Court of committing six fundamental legal errors in its December 2023 judgment ordering the continuation of Kanu’s terrorism trial.
Chidera made the allegations in an open letter addressed to the Nigerian Bar Association and dated August 26, 2026.
He questioned the legal basis for continuing the charges after the Court of Appeal, in October 2022, discharged Kanu and quashed the terrorism charges against him.
According to the lawyer, although the Supreme Court later set aside the Court of Appeal judgment, it directed the “continuation” of the proceedings rather than ordering a retrial.
He argued that the distinction created a major jurisdictional question, asking what legal provision restored charges that had already been quashed.
“The Supreme Court did not say ‘retrial.’ It said ‘continuation.’ That distinction matters,” Chidera wrote.
He also faulted the Supreme Court for describing the Terrorism Prevention Act 2013 as “extant and existing law” in its December 15, 2023 judgment.
Chidera argued that the 2013 Act had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, and cited Section 122 of the Evidence Act, which requires courts to take judicial notice of laws previously and currently in force.
The lawyer said the court should clarify which law sustained the proceedings following the repeal of the 2013 legislation, particularly in light of Section 97 of the 2022 Act.
Chidera further challenged the Supreme Court’s treatment of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, arguing that although the court recognised the Charter as part of Nigerian law, it failed to adequately address its implications for Kanu’s rendition from Kenya.
He cited the Supreme Court’s reliance on the landmark case, Abacha v Fawehinmi, which established that Nigerian courts must give effect to the domesticated African Charter.
“The African Charter cannot be treated as binding law when being quoted and as decorative language when being applied,” he stated.
The lawyer also raised questions over the legal consequences of the Supreme Court’s findings on Kanu’s rendition.
Chidera cited findings attributed to Justice Emmanuel Agim, who described Kanu’s seizure and transfer to Nigeria in terms including “brazen lawlessness” and referred to his prosecution as “unfair and oppressive.”
He argued that such findings ought to have had consequences for the continuation of the criminal proceedings.
Chidera also questioned the application of the principle in Madukolu v Nkemdilim, particularly the requirement that proceedings must come before a court through due process of law.
He cited Justice Lawal Garba’s position that “not even this court can confer jurisdiction where none exists.”
The lawyer argued that if the Supreme Court could not confer jurisdiction where none existed, the Federal High Court could not acquire such jurisdiction merely from the Supreme Court’s order.
He also challenged the application of Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 to conduct allegedly committed outside Nigeria, including broadcasts attributed to Kanu while he was abroad.
According to him, the provision imposes statutory conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction over certain offences committed outside Nigeria, including whether the conduct amounts to an offence under the law of the country where it occurred.
Chidera called on the Nigerian Bar Association, International Bar Association and members of the legal profession to examine the legal issues raised in his letter.
He insisted that the central question was not the seriousness of the allegations against Kanu but whether the prosecution and subsequent conviction were founded on a valid legal basis.
“The more serious the allegation, the more important the law becomes,” he wrote.
Chidera maintained that the Supreme Court’s use of the word “continuation” did not resolve the jurisdictional questions arising from the earlier discharge and quashing of the charges.
“Until that question is answered, the word ‘continuation’ is not a legal bridge. It is merely a word placed over a jurisdictional gap,” he said.
