A public advocate and human rights lawyer, Christopher Chidera Esq. , has faulted the Supreme Court’s handling of the case involving Maz...
A public advocate and human rights lawyer, Christopher Chidera Esq., has faulted the Supreme Court’s handling of the case involving Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), insisting that the proceedings against him amount to a nullity due to violations of his constitutional right to fair hearing.
In a strongly worded statement titled “The Immutable Right to Fair Hearing in Kanu's Case”, Chidera argued that Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) guarantees fair hearing as an absolute and inviolable right, which cannot be suspended or compromised by any arm of government, including the Supreme Court.
He stressed that Kanu was not brought back to Nigeria through lawful extradition procedures as stipulated in the Extradition Act, Cap E25 LFN 2004, but through extraordinary rendition—a state-sponsored abduction carried out in collaboration with foreign agents. This, he maintained, stripped Kanu of notice, legal representation, and due judicial process.
Chidera noted that although the Supreme Court in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu (SC/CR/1361/2022, judgment delivered December 15, 2023) acknowledged the illegality of the rendition, it erred by remitting the case to the Federal High Court for trial.
“Extraordinary rendition is the antithesis of due process. Any trial founded on illegality collapses at the threshold. To proceed is to make a mockery of justice,” he declared, citing the landmark case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341.
The lawyer further dismissed suggestions that Kanu could pursue damages through civil remedies, describing such an approach as “an absurdity that trivializes the Constitution.” According to him, the Supreme Court itself had held in Ariori v. Elemo (1983) 1 SCNLR 1 that once fair hearing is denied, proceedings—no matter how well conducted—are null and void.
Chidera also referenced Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621, where the apex court emphasized that the Constitution is founded on the rule of law, and the judiciary must never condone illegality.
“By allowing Kanu’s trial to continue despite recognizing the illegality of his rendition, the Court risks legitimizing executive lawlessness and eroding public confidence in the judiciary,” he warned.
He concluded that the only constitutional outcome is the nullification of the entire proceedings against Kanu, stressing that the supremacy of the Constitution must be upheld above all else.
No comments