Kanu: Lawyer Questions NBA’s Silence On Court Orders, Detention

A human rights lawyer and member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, Christopher Chidera, has questioned the silence of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) on the legal issues surrounding the detention and ongoing court proceedings involving the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu.

Chidera raised the concerns in an open letter addressed to the NBA and copied to the International Bar Association, in which he called for clarification on the legal basis for actions taken following a Court of Appeal judgment in Kanu’s case.

Kanu was convicted by the Federal High Court, Abuja, in 2025 on terrorism-related charges. He has denied the allegations and appealed the judgment.

According to Chidera, the Court of Appeal had on October 13, 2022, discharged Kanu and quashed the charges against him, but eight days later, a stay of execution was obtained through a civil proceeding.

He questioned the legal basis for using a civil procedural mechanism to stay the effect of a judgment arising from a criminal matter.

“The judgment being stayed was not a money judgment. It was not a commercial judgment. It was not an order for payment. It was not an order concerning property,” Chidera said.

He argued that the issue was particularly significant because the subject matter of the judgment involved the liberty of an individual.

Chidera further recalled that Kanu had spent about 14 months in detention following his rendition to Nigeria, adding that the state continued to keep him in custody after the Court of Appeal’s decision.

He said the continued detention subsequently led to contempt proceedings against the Department of State Services (DSS) and the then Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami.

“The state knew what the Court of Appeal had ordered. The state knew Kanu had been discharged. The state continued to keep him in detention,” he alleged.

The lawyer also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawal-Osula v. Lawal-Osula (1995), arguing that a party in continuing disobedience of a court order should not benefit from the court’s discretion while the alleged disobedience persists.

He questioned whether the Court of Appeal, having determined the criminal appeal, retained jurisdiction to subsequently entertain a civil procedure capable of suspending the effect of its decision.

“A court cannot acquire jurisdiction simply because the State needs a procedural route around an inconvenient judgment,” he said.

Chidera said the issues raised were not merely technical legal arguments, but involved fundamental questions of jurisdiction, legality and personal liberty.

He also questioned the NBA’s response to the issues, comparing its current posture with the activism of the late human rights lawyer, Gani Fawehinmi.

However, Chidera said his intervention was not about whether Kanu should be supported, but whether government actions should be subject to the same legal standards applicable to other parties.

“The question is whether the government can disobey a court order and then obtain judicial protection from the consequences of its disobedience,” he said.

The lawyer said the letter was the first of a three-part series examining the legal issues surrounding Kanu’s case.

He said the second part would focus on the Supreme Court’s decision to remit the case for “continuation” after the Court of Appeal had quashed the counts against Kanu, while the third would examine the use of the repealed Terrorism Prevention Act 2013 and constitutional provisions relating to criminal offences.

Chidera urged the NBA to respond to the questions raised in his letter, particularly on the legal authority and jurisdiction relied upon in the various stages of Kanu’s case.

“Where is the law? Where is the jurisdiction? Where is the precedent? Where is the constitutional authority? And above all, where is the Nigerian Bar Association?” he asked.

He said a response from the NBA would help clarify the legal questions arising from the case and contribute to the broader debate on the rule of law and administration of justice in Nigeria.