Nnamdi Kanu Sues President Tinubu to Court

By Adesina Soyooye

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, detained Leader of the  Indigenous People of Biafra,  has in a fresh fresh suit sued the Federal Government.

This time, Kanu, who has been in detention since June 2021 when he was brought back from Nairobi, Kenya, is seeking a permanent termination of his prosecution in Court.

One of the reasons for which Kanu is asking for a discontinuation of  his trial at a Federal High Court Abuja, presided over by the Honourable Justice James Omotosho, is, he said, because he had since been discharged by the Court of Appeal. A continuation of husband trial is now, according to him, a “fragrant violation of the rule of law.”

Kanu’s suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015,  highlighted four defects in his continued  prosecution.

He argued:

“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.

“Each of these defects is independently fatal; cumulatively, they render the entire trial incompetent and void”, the suit added.

Kanu argued that the Federal Government remains in flagrant contempt of a subsisting appellate judgment which had in the past, discharged him.

“By the Doctrine of Appellate Finality, that order terminated the trial absolutely”  he opined.

“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 argued that he had been denied fair hearing, in violation of Section 36(6)(b)&(c) of the 1999 Constitution and Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter.”

Kanu also argued that: “after four years in solitary detention,  I was allowed only three hours of monitored consultation with counsel in the courtroom on the eve of entering his defence in a capital case.

“That is not fair hearing — it is judicial perversity”.

Another defect Kanu pointed out, is the  reliance on what he dismissed as a forged medical report with which the Court ruled him  fit to stand trial. The ruling, Kanu declared;  “rests upon a forged medical report dated 23 September 2025”.

He pointed out that  Court’s order which directed the Nigerian Medical Association, NMA, to examine him was made on 26 September 2025, and the “purported report”  issued three days earlier.

Kanu emphasised that “no such examination ever occurred”,  and asserted that “reliance on that fraudulent document vitiates the ruling”.

He cited Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, and said: “where any condition precedent to jurisdiction is absent, the entire proceedings are a nullity.”

Finally, and based on the defects he pointed out, he urged the Court ”to declare these proceedings void and to terminate the trial forthwith in obedience to the rule of law.”