Premium News
Detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a fresh suit against the Federal Government, urging the court to permanently terminate his ongoing trial on grounds of multiple constitutional and procedural violations.
In the new motion, filed before the Federal High Court, Abuja, and marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, Kanu argued that the continued prosecution despite his earlier discharge by the Court of Appeal amounted to a flagrant breach of the rule of law and judicial hierarchy.
A copy of the suit, made available to Vanguard through his family, detailed four critical defects that Kanu said invalidate the proceedings.
“These four defects — contempt of appellate authority, failure to take judicial notice of repeal, denial of fair hearing, and reliance on forgery — are all ex facie recordi and strike at the root of jurisdiction,” the suit read
“Each of these defects is independently fatal; cumulatively, they render the entire trial incompetent and void.”
Kanu maintained that the Federal Government has remained in “flagrant contempt of a subsisting appellate judgment” that had previously discharged him, stressing that by law, the Doctrine of Appellate Finality prohibits any further proceedings once an appellate court has made a binding ruling.
“By the Doctrine of Appellate Finality, that order terminated the trial absolutely,” Kanu submitted.
“Until it was set aside by the Supreme Court (after fourteen months), it remained binding in praesenti and enforceable ex debito justitiae. See Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 621; Rossek v. ACB Ltd (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt.312) 382.”
“A contemnor cannot invoke the equitable discretion of a lower court while continuing in disobedience — ex turpi causa non oritur actio.”
Kanu also accused the Federal Government of violating his right to fair hearing, citing Section 36(6)(b)&(c) of the 1999 Constitution and Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter.
He narrated that after spending four years in solitary detention, he was only permitted three hours of monitored consultation with his legal team on the eve of entering his defence in a capital trial.
“That is not fair hearing — it is judicial perversity,” he declared.
Kanu further alleged that the court’s recent ruling on his fitness to stand trial was tainted by reliance on a forged medical report.
According to him, the purported report was dated September 23, 2025, even though the court’s directive for an examination by the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) was issued three days later, on September 26, 2025.
“No such examination ever occurred,” Kanu insisted, arguing that “reliance on that fraudulent document vitiates the ruling.”
Citing the landmark decision in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, Kanu contended that once a condition precedent to jurisdiction is absent, “the entire proceedings are a nullity.”
He therefore urged the court to declare the ongoing proceedings void and terminate the trial forthwith, in full compliance with the rule of law.
