Follow Us on Google
•Demands proof of jurisdiction
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
Abuja-based lawyer, Christopher Chidera has renewed his challenge to the legal foundation of the terrorism trial of Nnamdi Kanu, publishing the second instalment of a three-part open letter to the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) that accuses the Supreme Court of six fundamental errors in its December 15, 2023 order directing the “continuation” of the case.
In the letter, dated 26 August 2026, Chidera argues that the apex court, in the judgment authored by Justice Lawal Garba, wrongly described the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2013 as “extant and existing law,” even though the statute had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022 more than a year earlier.
He contends the court owed a duty under Section 122 of the Evidence Act to take judicial notice of the repeal, noting that the same panel had corrected a separate statutory citation error elsewhere in the same judgment.
Chidera also questions the court’s choice of the word “continuation” rather than “retrial,” pointing out that the Court of Appeal had, in October 2022, discharged Kanu, quashed the charges against him, and held that Nigerian courts lacked jurisdiction under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Act.
He argues that setting aside that judgment did not, by itself, supply the legal mechanism needed to revive the quashed counts.
Other News
A central plank of the letter concerns the Supreme Court’s own finding attributed to Justice Emmanuel Agim that Kanu had been unlawfully abducted and extraordinarily rendered from Kenya to Nigeria.
Chidera notes that the same TPPA 2022 the state relied on to prosecute Kanu defines kidnapping and treaty violations as acts of terrorism in their own right, and cites a ruling by the High Court of Kenya that found Kanu’s removal from that country unlawful and unconstitutional, given the absence of extradition proceedings.
Invoking the Supreme Court’s own precedent in Madukolu v Nkemdilim, which requires that a case reach a court through due process for that court to be competent, Chidera argues that an unlawful rendition cannot satisfy that requirement and notes that the same judgment quoted Justice Garba as saying “not even this court can confer jurisdiction where none exists.”
He further argues that Section 76 of the TPPA 2022, which sets conditions for prosecuting offences committed abroad, was never squarely addressed by the court in relation to conduct attributed to Kanu while he was outside Nigeria.
The letter does not dispute the Supreme Court’s authority to hear the appeal or set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision.
Its central demand, addressed to the NBA and the International Bar Association, is for a specific statutory basis showing what law restored the quashed charges against Kanu after the 2022 discharge.
Chidera says Part III of the series will examine Section 97 of the TPPA 2022 and Section 36(12) of the Constitution.
