The Indigenous People of Biafra has criticised the Supreme Court’s decision to remit the case involving its detained leader, Nnamdi Kanu, for further proceedings, arguing that charges already quashed by the Court of Appeal could not be revived through a remittal order.
The group’s Head of Directorate of State, Mazi Chris Nwaogu, made the position known on Monday in a video broadcast while commenting on the ongoing legal battle over Kanu’s conviction and life sentence.
Nwaogu argued that the apex court exceeded its constitutional authority by making findings on individual counts which, according to him, had already been quashed by the Court of Appeal.
He maintained that while the Supreme Court had the authority to correct an error by the lower appellate court concerning the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, it could not restore charges that had already been extinguished.
According to him, the Supreme Court’s decision went beyond correcting the Court of Appeal’s position on the effect of Kanu’s extraordinary rendition on the trial court’s jurisdiction.
He said, “The Supreme Court is entitled to correct the Court of Appeal if the court was wrong about the inherent competence of the trial court to keep sitting.
“But going down the individual counts the Court of Appeal had already quashed and declaring that the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to try those particular counts is not a correction.”
Nwaogu contended that jurisdiction must already exist and could not be created by a court order.
He said a remittal order could return a valid case to a lower court but could not revive charges that had ceased to exist.
The IPOB official further argued that if another trial was constitutionally permissible, the matter should have been recommenced under the laws in force rather than relying on the remittal order to revive the quashed counts.
He said, “A court can declare jurisdiction that already exists; it cannot manufacture jurisdiction that has ceased to exist.
“An order of remittal can send a living case to a court; it cannot by itself raise a dead count from the grave and make it triable.”
Nwaogu also criticised what he described as delays in the hearing of Kanu’s appeal against his conviction and life sentence.
He alleged that the Federal Government had yet to file its respondent’s brief or take steps to have the appeal listed for hearing, despite having vigorously pursued Kanu’s prosecution.
“The Federal Government has not filed a Respondent’s brief, they have not listed the appeal, they have not come to court. A country that rushed to convict is now too frightened to defend the conviction,” he said.
The IPOB official subsequently gave the Federal Government 14 days to ensure that Kanu’s appeal was listed and heard, warning that failure to do so could trigger moves by the group to mobilise for a boycott of the 2027 general elections across the South-East and other areas it identifies as Biafraland.
Kanu’s family had also recently raised concerns over delays in the appellate process, saying the IPOB leader had written to the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the President of the Court of Appeal over the need for his pending cases to be listed and heard.
Nwaogu accused the authorities of deliberately keeping Kanu in detention because of his political influence, insisting that the government should be prepared to defend the conviction in court.
“They fear a free Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. They fear his influence, they fear a man who will not trade Biafra so they keep him in Sokoto and hide from their own court,” he said.
He added that the handling of Kanu’s case would ultimately test the credibility of Nigeria’s judicial system.
“This case will either reset the Nigerian judiciary or expose it,” Nwaogu said.
