Nnamdi Kanu Challenges Federal Government In Fresh Legal Battle Seeking Termination Of His Prolonged Trial Immediately

 

A new phase has emerged in the prolonged legal battle between Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), and the Federal Government of Nigeria. The embattled separatist leader has filed a fresh lawsuit seeking a permanent end to his ongoing trial. The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, challenges the validity and legality of continuing the proceedings against him.

Through the suit, Kanu contends that his ongoing trial suffers from four fundamental defects that render it incompetent and void. These defects, he stated, include contempt of an appellate authority, failure to take judicial notice of a repeal, denial of fair hearing, and reliance on a forged medical report. According to him, each of these flaws is independently fatal; together, they strike at the root of the court’s jurisdiction and make the entire process a nullity.

At the heart of Kanu’s argument is the claim that the Federal Government remains in flagrant contempt of a subsisting judgment of the Court of Appeal which had previously discharged him of all charges. He insists that by virtue of the Doctrine of Appellate Finality, that discharge terminated his trial completely and absolutely. Until it was overturned by the Supreme Court fourteen months later, the order remained binding, valid, and enforceable as a matter of law.

The IPOB leader maintained that the government could not continue to pursue his prosecution while in disobedience of a superior court order. He cited the principle that a contemnor cannot invoke the equitable discretion of a lower court while still acting in violation of a binding appellate decision. His legal team believes this alone is enough to void any further proceedings.

Kanu also accused the government of denying him his fundamental right to fair hearing, guaranteed under Section 36(6)(b) & (c) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. He described how, after spending four years in solitary detention, he was allowed only three hours of closely monitored consultation with his lawyer in the courtroom on the eve of entering his defence in a capital case. He argued that such treatment cannot qualify as a fair hearing but instead represents a gross miscarriage of justice and a violation of due process.

Another serious allegation raised in the new suit concerns what Kanu describes as the court’s reliance on a forged medical report. The document, dated 23 September 2025, reportedly formed the basis of the court’s decision that he was fit to stand trial. However, Kanu’s legal team pointed out that the court order directing the Nigerian Medical Association to examine him was made on 26 September 2025, three days after the supposed report was issued. This, he claims, proves that no medical examination ever took place and that the report was fabricated.

According to him, any judicial ruling resting on such a fraudulent document cannot stand. He referenced the principle established in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) that once any condition precedent to jurisdiction is absent, the entire proceedings become null and void. Consequently, he urged the court to declare the current proceedings illegal, void, and terminated forthwith in obedience to the rule of law.

The filing of this new suit signals Kanu’s latest effort to regain his freedom and challenge what he views as continued persecution. Since his initial arrest in 2015, his escape from Nigeria in 2017, and his re-arrest in 2021, his case has evolved into one of the most controversial legal and political sagas in Nigeria’s modern history. Supporters see him as a symbol of self-determination and political resistance, while opponents regard him as a national security threat.

Legal analysts suggest that the latest move could reopen a fierce constitutional debate over the scope of appellate authority, the doctrine of finality, and the limits of executive power in enforcing judgments. If the Federal High Court agrees with his arguments, it could lead to the immediate cessation of his trial and potentially his release. On the other hand, the government is expected to argue that the trial remains valid and that the issues raised have already been settled by higher courts.

Beyond the technicalities, this case once again places Nigeria’s justice system under the microscope. It raises questions about adherence to court orders, the protection of defendants’ rights, and the balance between national security and individual liberty.

As both sides prepare for another courtroom confrontation, the outcome of this new suit will likely define not only the next chapter of Nnamdi Kanu’s personal battle but also the broader discourse on justice, rule of law, and political accountability in Nigeria.