A member of the Global Legal Consortium for Nnamdi Kanu, Christopher Chidera, has called on the Nigerian Bar Association and International Bar Association to clarify the legal basis for the continuation of charges previously quashed against the detained Indigenous People of Biafra leader.
Chidera made the demand in an open letter dated August 26, 2026, questioning how the charges quashed by the Court of Appeal in October 2022 were revived for Kanu to enter a fresh plea before the Federal High Court in March 2025.
He acknowledged that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to set aside the Court of Appeal’s judgment and ordered the continuation of Kanu’s trial in its December 15, 2023 judgment.
However, the lawyer questioned what exactly was restored by the Supreme Court after the appellate court had discharged Kanu and quashed the charges.
He also raised questions about the effect of the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2011, as amended in 2013, and the subsequent enactment of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
According to him, Section 97 of the 2022 Act, which contains transitional provisions, should be examined to determine whether and how proceedings initiated under the repealed legislation were preserved.
Chidera further questioned the legal basis for the Federal High Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the charges following the Supreme Court’s remittal of the case.
He argued that the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction should be distinguished from the trial court’s jurisdiction over the specific counts.
The lawyer also cited Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution, which protects against being tried again for an offence for which a person has previously been convicted or acquitted, subject to the constitutional exception concerning an order of a superior court.
He said the distinction between “continuation” and “retrial” required clarification, particularly in light of the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision to discharge Kanu and quash the charges.
Chidera also questioned the circumstances surrounding Kanu’s fresh plea before Justice James Omotosho on March 21, 2025, asking what charges he was pleading to if the earlier counts had been quashed.
He urged the NBA and IBA to establish the legal mechanism connecting the Court of Appeal’s October 2022 judgment with the subsequent proceedings.
“What law restored the charges quashed on 13 October 2022 so that a fresh plea could be taken on 21 March 2025?” he asked.
Chidera maintained that the issue was not whether the legal profession should support Kanu personally, but whether the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions were properly applied.
He therefore called for a clear explanation of what the terms “quashed” and “discharged” meant in the circumstances, what Section 97 of the 2022 terrorism law preserved, and where the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction over the charges originated following the Supreme Court’s decision.
