Nnamdi Kanu’s Legal Consultant Challenges Supreme Court Ruling, Calls Remittal ‘Constitutional Heresy’

Oct 30, 2025

—

By: Sunday Ameh

A legal consultant to detained IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu, Barrister Jude Njoku, has issued a strong condemnation of the Supreme Court’s December 15, 2023 decision to return Kanu’s case to the Federal High Court, describing the ruling as unconstitutional and void.

In a legal document titled “A Devastating Critique: The Nigerian Supreme Court’s Unlawful Remittal of Nnamdi Kanu’s Case,” Njoku argued that the apex court violated both the Nigerian Constitution and settled jurisprudence by remitting a case already terminated by the Court of Appeal on October 13, 2022.

He described the Supreme Court’s action as a “blatant constitutional perversity” and “judicial heresy,” insisting the Court of Appeal’s discharge of Kanu barred any further trial under Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits double jeopardy.

“The Constitution, not the Supreme Court, is supreme. The moment the Court of Appeal discharged him, jurisdiction to retry Kanu was permanently lost,” Njoku stated.

Njoku maintained that the Supreme Court, by sending the matter back for trial without overturning the illegal-rendition finding or producing new evidence, breached the doctrine of finality of appellate decisions.

He cited comparative jurisprudence from England, Canada, and Australia, alongside Nigerian authorities including FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) and Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000), to support his position.
According to him, the apex court’s decision constitutes “judicial overreach masquerading as review”, warning that such rulings erode constitutional supremacy and undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

Njoku also accused the Supreme Court panel that delivered the 2023 judgment of violating judicial hierarchy by departing from African Charter precedents established by a larger constitutional panel.
“A smaller panel cannot overrule the decision of a larger bench,” he argued, calling the ruling “void ab initio” and a form of “judicial insurrection.”

He insisted that the remittal order remains unenforceable and urged the court to reverse itself in the interest of constitutional order and the rule of law.