Nnamdi Kanu Seeks Supreme Court Review Claiming Judgment Relied On Repealed Laws and Custodial Constraints

 

Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, has filed a fresh request before the Supreme Court seeking a review of its earlier judgment ordering his retrial. The motion, filed as part of ongoing legal proceedings against the federal government of Nigeria, requests an extension of the period within which he may apply for leave to challenge the December 2023 judgment.

Kanu argued that he only recently gained full access to his complete case file on October 26, 2025, marking the first time he could personally examine the materials since his incarceration. His decision to represent himself, rather than rely solely on external legal counsel, prompted the request for additional time to thoroughly review the case and prepare a motion to set aside the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The motion highlights that the original judgment in the case of Federal Republic of Nigeria versus Nnamdi Kanu, marked SC/CR/1361/2022, was delivered per curiam on December 15, 2023. Kanu contends that the judgment relied on statutes that had already ceased to exist in law, specifically citing the repeal and replacement of relevant provisions by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022. He described the ruling as being issued in violation of Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution and Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011.

According to the motion, Kanu acted swiftly upon discovering the legal discrepancies, instructing the preparation of a motion to set aside the judgment and filing a companion application seeking an extension of time to regularize this procedural step. The request stresses that the time elapsed between the judgment and the new motion was neither deliberate nor intended to delay the case, but rather the unavoidable result of his restricted access while in custody.

The IPOB leader’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, supported the motion through a sworn affidavit. He detailed the conditions under which Nnamdi Kanu remained in detention, noting that the confinement severely limited his access to counsel and the official case records. Prince Emmanuel explained that until October 21, 2025, external legal teams handled the proceedings, preventing Kanu from scrutinizing filings or understanding the legal strategies adopted on his behalf.

The affidavit further stated that after assuming full control of the case, Kanu discovered that the Supreme Court ruling relied on repealed statutes, constituting a jurisdictional error. Prince Emmanuel affirmed that the new motion for extension of time was filed promptly and in good faith to allow his brother to seek proper legal redress. The affidavit emphasizes that this matter touches the core of judicial authority, as errors relating to jurisdiction cannot be constrained by time limits or procedural technicalities.

Legal analysts suggest that Kanu’s motion raises fundamental questions about access to justice, the proper application of laws, and the rights of defendants in custody. By asserting his constitutional right to self-representation and challenging what he claims is a procedural nullity, Kanu is attempting to highlight potential oversights in the Supreme Court’s December 2023 ruling.

Observers also note that the request reflects a strategic effort to ensure that all legal avenues are explored, especially considering the high-profile nature of the case and its implications for the federal government and IPOB. The Supreme Court is now expected to consider whether to grant leave for Kanu to file the application for review and whether to extend the time formally, which could influence the trajectory of the retrial order.

This development adds another layer to an already complex legal battle that has captured national attention, raising important issues about statutory interpretation, detainee rights, and the powers of Nigeria’s highest court. Kanu’s motion insists that the extension and review are necessary for the restoration of constitutional order and correction of a manifest judicial error.