A constitutional lawyer, Njoku Jude Njoku, has openly criticized the Nigerian judiciary, alleging a “false interpretation” of key legal principles in the ongoing case of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. In a strongly worded statement issued on Sunday, September 14, 2025, Njoku argued that the Supreme Court’s approach to the case directly contradicts Nigeria’s constitutional provisions and established judicial precedents.
The Misinterpretation of “Superior Court”
According to Njoku, the core issue lies in the judiciary’s interpretation of “double jeopardy” and the term “superior court.” He explained that Section 36(9) of the Constitution prevents a person who has been acquitted or convicted from being tried for the same offense again, “save upon the order of a superior court.” He contended that judges have been wrongly equating “superior court” with a “higher court in hierarchy” (like the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court), which he says is not what the Constitution intended.
Njoku pointed to Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which he said clearly establishes that a “superior court” refers to a class of courts listed in Section 6(5)—such as the High Court and the Federal High Court—neither of which is hierarchically superior to the other. “By the same logic, ‘superior court’ in Section 36(9) cannot mean only the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court,” he said.
A Contradictory Judiciary
The lawyer also highlighted a fundamental contradiction in how courts have been handling the case. He noted that while courts often declare that “jurisdiction is the lifeblood of adjudication,” they have seemingly “manufactured jurisdiction” after a trial is declared a nullity. If jurisdiction is truly the lifeblood, he argued, then once it is absent, the case should be “dead,” and it cannot be “resurrected by judicial decree.”
Njoku referenced a Supreme Court precedent from the case of Dikko v. State (2016), where the court held that once a trial is declared a nullity, “the accused stands discharged and acquitted; the matter cannot be reopened to his detriment.” He believes this precedent decisively supports the position that Kanu cannot be retried.
A Call for Course Correction
Njoku stressed that the Court of Appeal’s decision to discharge Nnamdi Kanu in October 2022 should have ended his legal jeopardy. “Section 36(9) is clear: once a competent superior court of record has discharged an accused, he cannot be tried again. To order a retrial after this point is to erase the Constitution,” he stated.
He further criticized the Supreme Court’s December 2023 ruling, calling it “self-contradictory and unconstitutional.” He said the apex court ignored its own precedent and attempted to “square a circle” by declaring a lack of jurisdiction while simultaneously ordering a retrial. Njoku warned that this “perverse jurisprudence” would further erode what little public confidence remains in Nigeria’s justice system.
