Nnamdi Kanu: Rebuttal To ‘IPOB’s Voodoo Justice’

An article recently published in some online newspapers titled, ‘IPOB’s Voodoo Justice And Group’s Plan To Manipulate Court For Nnamdi Kanu’s Acquittal”, failed the test of objectivity, rigour and logic. The article is at best, a propaganda.

1. Poverty of Legal Reasoning in the Article
   It is laughable that an individual bereft of legal training presumes to dismiss complex constitutional questions with bare rhetoric. The pivotal issue — can a trial be sustained under a repealed law? — is the very fulcrum upon which Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case turns.

The law is settled that no one can be tried under a non-existent statute. In Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400 at 403, the Supreme Court declared:

“It is a fundamental principle of our criminal law that a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless that crime is defined and the penalty therefore is prescribed in a written law.”

The Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, the charging statute, has been repealed. It is a dead law. A dead law cannot find a living prosecution.

2. Justice Binta Nyako’s Recusal
   The propaganda piece conceals the notorious incident where Justice Binta Nyako sought to anchor her continued presence on “instructions” from the Chief Judge. Nnamdi Kanu rightly schooled her in open court: “The Chief Judge is not the Court of Appeal.” If the State was aggrieved by her recusal, the remedy lay in appeal — not executive fiat.

This aligns with the Supreme Court’s timeless admonition in Olalekan v. State (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt. 746) 793 at 812 per Uwaifo, JSC:

“The independence of the judiciary demands that a judge must resist every external influence… once he cannot decide for himself, he ceases to be a judge.”

It was precisely this legal humiliation that forced the Chief Justice to transfer the case file to Justice James Omotosho. That was not intimidation. It was a judicial rescue.

3. On the So-Called “Evidence” Tendered
   The prosecution’s “evidence” is a disgrace to criminal jurisprudence. No bullet. No bombs. No arson. No destruction. Only doctored DSS “broadcasts” that collapse at the threshold of admissibility.

The Supreme Court has long settled that evidence must be relevant, admissible, and credible. In Suberu v. State (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1197) 586 at 613 per Adekeye JSC:

“The primary duty of the court is to ensure that justice is done by admitting only such evidence that is relevant, admissible and credible. Anything short of this is a miscarriage of justice.”

Admitting heavily edited audio tapes is the very definition of miscarriage.

4. Discharge Equals Acquittal
   The most ignorant assertion in the propaganda article is that an appellate court’s “discharge” is somehow not an acquittal. Nigerian case law is emphatic that a discharge on jurisdictional or substantive grounds terminates proceedings absolutely.

In Abacha v. State (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 437 at 499, the Supreme Court held:

“Where a court of competent jurisdiction has discharged an accused person on the merits or on want of jurisdiction, such discharge amounts to an acquittal.”

Similarly, in Ibori v. Agbi (2004) 6 NWLR (Pt. 868) 78 at 106, the Court of Appeal affirmed:

“A discharge founded upon a finding of want of jurisdiction is tantamount to an acquittal. To try such a person again is to offend Section 36(9) of the Constitution.”

Thus, the Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2022 discharge of Nnamdi Kanu was in law an acquittal. The Supreme Court’s December 15, 2023 somersault, under political pressure, was per incuriam and unconstitutional.

4A. Section 97 of the TPPA 2022 Cannot Save Dead Charges
The propagandist also ignores a fundamental constitutional reality: Section 97 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 — the saving clause — does not apply to Nnamdi Kanu’s case.

By 13 October 2022, the Court of Appeal had quashed all charges and discharged him. From that moment, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was in the eyes of the law a free man, without any liability whatsoever. Between that date and the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional ruling of 15 December 2023, no charge was pending against him.

A saving clause only preserves live proceedings. It cannot resurrect dead charges. In A.-G., Federation v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1 at 82, the Supreme Court stressed:

“A saving clause cannot breathe life into what is already dead in law.”

Thus, Section 97 cannot retroactively validate charges that had been constitutionally nullified. The Supreme Court’s reliance on it to “resurrect” quashed proceedings was unconstitutional and in direct violation of Section 36(9) CFRN on double jeopardy.

5. IPOB’s Legal Status
   The hack-writer suppresses the fact that on 1 March 2017, the Federal High Court, Umuahia Division, ruled categorically that IPOB is not an unlawful society. That subsisting ruling has never been set aside.

Conversely, Justice Kafarati’s 2017 ex parte “proscription order” was void ab initio. The Constitution in Section 36 makes fair hearing non-derogable. In Director, SSS v. Agbakoba (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 595) 314 at 356, the Supreme Court declared:

“Fair hearing is the bedrock of our legal system… any trial or proceeding conducted in violation of it is null and void.”

A civil ex parte order cannot metamorphose into a criminal basis for terrorism charges. To rely on such is a fraud on the Constitution.

6. Who the Real Terrorists Are
   In the civilised world, it is Nigeria’s ruling elite — not IPOB — who stand condemned. On 28 July 2025, the Superior Court of Ontario, Canada, ruled in adversarial proceedings that Nigeria’s APC and PDP are terrorist organisations.

Unlike Nigeria’s chamber judgments, this was not ex parte, not manufactured. It was open, adversarial, and reasoned. It is therefore Nigeria, not IPOB, that wears the terrorist label in the eyes of the international community.

7. Conclusion
   The article in question is the very definition of propaganda: law without cases, claims without evidence, noise without substance. By contrast, the law, when properly examined, supports only one conclusion:

A repealed law cannot sustain a trial. (Aoko v. Fagbemi, supra)
An appellate discharge is an acquittal. (Abacha v. State; Ibori v. Agbi, supra)
As at 13 October 2022, Nnamdi Kanu was a free man in law, with no liability whatsoever.
Section 97 of TPPA 2022 cannot resurrect dead charges. (A.-G., Federation v. Abubakar, supra)
Ex parte proscription is unconstitutional. (Agbakoba, supra)
Nigeria’s ruling class are the terrorists, not IPOB. (Canada, 2025)
Ignorance may excuse a layman, but when paraded as legal commentary, it becomes dangerous. The writer of that trash piece has only exposed his own poverty of law and intellect.

Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq.
Legal Practitioner & Advocate for Constitutional Justice Consultant to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium
[email protected]

Nnamdi Kanu: Rebuttal To ‘IPOB’s Voodoo Justice’ is first published on The Whistler Newspaper