Iniquity on the Throne

[Abraham Madu]

Iniquity on the Throne: An Examination of Judicial Failures in the Case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu

The judiciary, as the last hope of the common man, is entrusted with upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice is served. However, in the case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the Nigerian judiciary has been accused of abandoning its constitutional role and descending into complicity with executive lawlessness. This article examines the judicial infractions that have marred Kanu's trial, highlighting the breach of constitutional supremacy and the erosion of trust in the justice system.

The Rendition Conundrum

Kanu's abduction in Kenya and subsequent rendition to Nigeria without extradition proceedings raises questions about the jurisdiction of Nigerian courts. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, incorporated into Nigerian law, prohibits the expulsion of a non-national without due process. The Supreme Court's decision in Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) emphasizes the importance of upholding this charter. Yet, Nigerian courts have proceeded with Kanu's trial, disregarding the principles of jurisdiction and rendition.

A Repealed Statute: A Basis for Prosecution?

The charges against Kanu were framed under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, despite its repeal by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022. This raises concerns about the legality of the charges and the potential for miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court's failure to address this issue has further eroded trust in the justice system.

Denial of Fair Hearing

Kanu's right to a fair hearing has been repeatedly compromised, with the trial court denying him unfettered access to counsel and legal documents. The secrecy surrounding the proceedings and selective media access have also contravene the constitutional mandate for public trials. The Supreme Court's decision in Ariori v. Elemo (1983) emphasizes the importance of fair hearing, and the court's failure to uphold this principle has significant implications for the rule of law.

Disobedience of Appellate Court Orders

The Court of Appeal's decision on October 13, 2022, prohibited the respondent from further detaining or prosecuting Kanu. However, the Supreme Court's subsequent decision remitting the case for trial without setting aside the Court of Appeal's order has condoned executive disobedience. This disregard for the rule of law and constitutional supremacy undermines the very fabric of the justice system.

Endorsement of Extraordinary Rendition

The Nigerian judiciary's decision to proceed with Kanu's trial despite his extraordinary rendition raises concerns about its complicity in executive lawlessness. International law criminalizes extraordinary rendition, and the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision in United States v. Toscanino (1974) emphasizes the importance of divesting jurisdiction in such cases. The Nigerian judiciary's failure to uphold this principle has significant implications for human rights and the rule of law.

Conclusion

The judicial infractions in Mazi Nnamdi Kanu's trial demonstrate a clear breach of constitutional supremacy and erosion of trust in the justice system. The Nigerian judiciary must uphold its constitutional role and ensure justice is served, rather than descending into complicity with executive lawlessness. As the last hope of the common man, the judiciary's integrity is crucial to maintaining public trust and upholding the rule of law.

Written By

Ezekwereogu Odinaka