LEGALLY VOID: Supreme Court Ignored As Human Rights Lawyer Declares Nnamdi Kanu Conviction Unconstitutional And Void

 

Human rights lawyer Barrister Christopher Chidera has strongly criticized the recent conviction of Indigenous People of Biafra leader Nnamdi Kanu, asserting that the verdict is unconstitutional, legally void, and cannot stand. Chidera, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, stressed that Nigeria’s Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no court has the authority to sidestep or reinterpret it at will.

According to Chidera, the judgment handed down by the Abuja Federal High Court, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, represents a profound breach of Nigeria’s constitutional and legal framework. The lawyer contends that the court’s reliance on statutes that are either repealed or non-existent renders the entire conviction invalid. He highlighted that Counts 1 to 6 of the charges against Kanu were based on the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, a law Chidera emphasizes has been formally repealed and is no longer enforceable. Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution explicitly states that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless it is defined in a law in force at the time, making any judgment under a repealed law inherently null.

Chidera further argued that Count 7 relied on a fictitious statute, referred to as the Criminal Code Act Cap C45, which does not exist in Nigeria’s statute book. The Supreme Court had previously identified the defect in Count 7 and ordered its correction, a directive the trial court allegedly ignored. By disregarding this order, the lawyer asserts that the lower court acted in direct defiance of the highest court in the country, undermining the principle of the rule of law.

Highlighting procedural failures, Chidera accused the trial court of refusing to take mandatory judicial notice of the repeal of public statutes, a requirement outlined in Section 122 of the Evidence Act. The lawyer emphasized that any post-trial attempt to amend the charges, reinterpret the law, or shift the situs of the alleged offences would amount to legal fraud, not legitimate jurisprudence.

Chidera described the verdict as a product of “judgment day confusion,” pointing out that the accused was tried under one set of laws but convicted under a different set never formally presented to him. He criticized the misapplication of the Criminal Code (CEMA) statute with an expired limitation period, arguing that Kanu had already endured unlawful detention beyond the statutory threshold.

According to Chidera, the court lacked jurisdiction in multiple independent ways: reliance on a repealed statute for Counts 1 to 6, the use of a non-existent statute for Count 7, disobedience of the Supreme Court, and refusal to acknowledge mandatory judicial notice. He maintained that when jurisdiction collapses, the validity of the entire trial collapses with it.

Demanding Kanu’s immediate and unconditional release, Chidera declared that convicting a citizen under laws that do not exist constitutes more than a miscarriage of justice. He insisted that such actions represent the death of legality in Nigeria, stressing that the Constitution demands accountability and respect for legal norms. History, Chidera warned, will remember those who upheld the law and those who failed to do so.

The controversial verdict continues to draw reactions nationally and internationally, raising urgent questions about judicial compliance, statutory authority, and constitutional governance in Nigeria.