Lawyer: The Supreme Court erred in sending the case back after the Court of Appeal acquitted Nnamdi Kanu.

Following Nnamdi Kanu's acquittal by the Court of Appeal, a lawyer named Barrister Njoku Jude Njoku has claimed that the Supreme Court erred in remitting the terrorism trial of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader.

In a statement released in Abuja, Njoku, a consultant to the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, a group of attorneys advocating for the IPOB leader's freedom, made the claim.

Following the Nigerian government's decision to close its case against Kanu, the statement follows his reluctance to enter his defense.

Kanu maintains that there is no evidence against him, and his defense team contends that his trial was void due to the Court of Appeal's earlier acquittal on October 13, 2022.

The Nigerian Supreme Court's decision to return Nnamdi Kanu's case to the Abuja Federal High Court for the continuation of the Biafra agitator's trial on December 15, 2025, was criticized by Njoku in a statement titled "A Devastating Critique: The Nigerian Supreme Court's Unlawful Remittal of Kanu's Case, the Inviolability of Section 36(9) Immunity, and the Universal Doctrine of Finality of Appellate Discharge."

Njoku claimed the ruling went against the appellate discharge doctrine of finality.

The Nigerian Constitution is higher to the Supreme Court, he said, calling the highest court's decision constitutional perversity.

"A clear constitutional perversity that attacks the very foundation of the rule of law and violates the universal, inviolable Doctrine of Finality of Appellate Discharge, a cornerstone of common-law jurisprudence acknowledged worldwide, is the Supreme Court's decision of December 15, 2023, ostensibly remitting a charge already extinguished by the Court of Appeal's lawful discharge of October 13, 2022.

Although it is widely acknowledged that "the law is what the Supreme Court says it is" in the hierarchy of interpretation, Sections 1(1) and 1(3) of the Constitution unavoidably give way to the supremacy of the Constitution, which states that the Constitution, not the Supreme Court, is the ultimate law. A person released by a court of competent jurisdiction is granted non-derogable immunity under Section 36(9), which is self-executing, absolute, and outside the purview of all judicial bodies, even the highest court.

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu became constitutionally untouchable for the same offenses after the Court of Appeal declared his discharge, the prosecution was shut down at its source, and the right to retry him was permanently taken away (FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113 at 175, Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt 660) 228).

The attorney claims that the Supreme Court did not interpret the law; rather, it violated it by sending a nullified, vitiated charge without overturning the illegal rendition finding, convicting the defendant, or discovering new facts. This, in turn, violated the Doctrine of Finality of Appellate Discharge, which is unassailable in all common-law jurisdictions across the world.

Citing English legal precedents (R v. Pinfold [1843] 5 Man & G 463, R v. Green [1950] 1 All ER 786), Njoku emphasized that "the Crown is barred from retrying the same offence once an appellate court quashes a conviction or discharges." Additionally, he cited a comparable Canadian case (R v. Riddle [1980] 1 SCR 257) to support his claim that an appellate acquittal is definitive and final.

Similarly, he supported the claim that "finality attaches immediately upon appellate discharge, the principle is immutable, an appellate discharge terminates the lis with absolute finality, no superior court may revive it without new evidence or distinct charges" by citing a case decided by an Australian court (Davern v. Messel (1984) 155 CLR 21).

The statement further insisted that Kanu's trial was void due to the Court of Appeal's October 13, 2022, ruling that cleared him.

The Supreme Court's remittal is therefore not only incorrect, but also jurisdictionally impossible, a global jurisprudential heresy. This was not judicial discretion, but rather judicial overreach masquerading as appellate review. In Nigeria, this doctrine is constitutionally enshrined in Section 36(9) and judicially fortified (Dokubo-Asari v. FRN (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt 1048) 320 at 375, appellate discharge "ends the matter finally and irrevocably."

The "unless set aside by a superior court" theory, which is appropriately limited to hierarchical obedience under Section 287, cannot be used as a weapon to violate the universal finality of appellate discharge or to pierce a constitutional immunity that functions outside and above the judicial pyramid. Holding otherwise would make Section 1(3) a dead letter and Section 36(9) merely a recommendation, elevating the Supreme Court above both the Constitution it vowed to preserve and the common-law community's sacrosanct concept of finality.

In Nigeria and throughout the common-law universe, the Constitution is supreme, the appellate discharge is final, and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is immune, so such a perverse remittal is void ab initio, constitutionally inexcusable, and an affront to the unchangeable principle that no court, not even the Supreme Court, may clearly deviate from a fundamental right.

Njoku added that by overturning African Charter jurisprudence that had previously been decided by a seven-member full constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, the five-member panel that "allegedly remitted Kanu's case committed a second constitutional abomination," "an act unheard of anywhere in the world."

Because no smaller bench can legally overrule or modify a decision of a larger constitutional panel, this judicial insubordination to binding constitutional precedent violates the very doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere (stand by what is decided), undermines institutional coherence, and collapses the Court's hierarchical integrity.

Therefore, it is obvious that the December 15, 2023, remittal judgment is invalid not only for lack of jurisdiction but also for judicial insurrection against the Constitution and the African Charter jurisprudence, which, according to Section 12 and Article 1 of the Charter, constitutes Nigeria's supreme law.