A human rights lawyer, Barr. Christopher Chidera, has strongly criticized the Supreme Court’s judgment in Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu (SC/CR/1364/2022), describing it as unconstitutional, per incuriam, and a “judicial fraud in broad daylight.”
In a memorandum dated September 16, 2025, and circulated to Nigerian courts, professional bodies, and international forums, Chidera argued that the apex court misapplied precedent by invoking Dokubo-Asari v. FRN (2007) to justify Kanu’s detention.
“Asari Dokubo is not Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,” Chidera declared in the memorandum on Wednesday.
The lawyer emphasised that, “The fact that the Nigerian state once succeeded in detaining Mujahid Asari Dokubo on charges of treasonable felony does not mean it can apply the same crude methods to Kanu, a man backed by a global defence consortium.”
According to him, the two cases are “worlds apart.” While Dokubo-Asari involved a routine domestic arrest and bail application, he said, Kanu’s case involved “extraordinary rendition from Nairobi, in breach of Kenya’s sovereignty and Nigeria’s Extradition Act.”
He maintained that the proper precedent is Dikko v. State (1987), which arose from Nigeria’s failed attempt to abduct Umaru Dikko from London, not the Dokubo-Asari case.
“By citing Dokubo-Asari, the Supreme Court collapsed the crucial distinction between a local arrest irregularity and a state-sponsored international kidnapping,” he argued. “That is an exercise in intellectual perversion.”
Chidera also faulted the Supreme Court for reversing the Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2022, decision that had discharged Kanu on jurisdictional grounds.
“Once the Court of Appeal discharged Kanu, the case was extinguished. The Supreme Court had nothing before it. By reviving a dead case, the court engaged in judicial necromancy,” he stated.
The lawyer further accused the Supreme Court of trampling on non-derogable constitutional rights. Citing Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, he said fair hearing and protection against double jeopardy are inviolable and cannot be limited, even in the name of national security.
“Non-derogable means non-derogable—no exceptions. Yet the Supreme Court balanced away Kanu’s rights as though they were negotiable. That is constitutionally impossible,” he said.
Quoting Section 1(3) of the Constitution, Chidera reminded the court that any law—or judgment— inconsistent with the Constitution is void.
“By validating extraordinary rendition and retrial after discharge, the Supreme Court produced rulings inconsistent with Section 36. Under Section 1(3), such rulings are automatically void,” he added.
He stressed that the judgment was more political than legal.
“The Supreme Court’s decision is not law but political expediency disguised as judicial reasoning. It is judicial fraud in broad daylight,” Chidera wrote.
“Nigeria cannot jail an educated man like Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on the crude template it once used against Asari Dokubo.”
