Nnamdi Kanu: Discharged and Acquitted — Yet Still in Detention — The Inconsistency of Nigeria’s Judicial System
Few issues have exposed Nigeria’s justice system to such sharp public scrutiny in recent years as the case of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). The twists and turns in his legal story — from extraordinary rendition to an appellate acquittal, then a Supreme Court reversal and continued custody — have left many Nigerians and international observers asking a simple question: how can a man be declared discharged and acquitted by one court and still be held in detention by the same state?
This blog unpacks that contradiction. I’ll explain the legal timeline, the jurisprudence invoked by the courts, the political context, the human-rights concerns, and what the Kanu saga reveals about weaknesses and tensions in Nigeria’s criminal justice system. I’ll also offer practical reforms that would reduce similar inconsistencies going forward.
A short legal timeline (the facts that matter)
To understand the contradiction we must first set out the key events clearly.
In October 2022, a Court of Appeal in Abuja delivered a judgment that effectively discharged and acquitted Nnamdi Kanu, finding that parts of the prosecution’s case were tainted by how he was brought back to Nigeria. Supporters hailed the decision as an unequivocal vindication.
The Federal Government appealed the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court. On 15 December 2023 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the appellate court’s discharge/acquittal, directing that Kanu’s trial proceed on the existing terrorism-related charges. The Supreme Court said the illegality in the manner he was brought to Nigeria did not, in the majority’s view, preclude trial on the substantive charges. Reuters and other international outlets reported on the judgment.
Since the Supreme Court decision, Kanu has remained in custody as the Federal Government’s prosecution proceeded and as lower courts took up procedural matters, bail applications, witness-protection issues and other related hearings. Multiple Nigerian outlets and international press have reported on his continued detention, bail denials, and court activity.
Throughout this sequence there have been parallel human-rights concerns and legal actions in the UK and elsewhere about the alleged “extraordinary rendition” — the arrest and transfer from Kenya to Nigeria — and about the conditions of his detention. British law firms and courts, and UN and international observers, have repeatedly raised alarms.
Those are the hard nodes in the chronology. The rest of this piece digs into how those nodes combine to create an apparent — and often real — legal inconsistency.
How discharge/acquittal can still leave someone detained: legal mechanics
At first glance, “discharged and acquitted” sounds final. In ordinary criminal-law intuition, if a competent appellate court has discharged and acquitted an accused, detention should end promptly. But the reality is more complicated — and not because the judges are speaking different languages. Several legal mechanics can produce the paradox of a formal acquittal coexisting with continued custody:
Interlocutory stays and appeals: after the appellate court delivers judgment in favour of the accused, the prosecution can ask a higher court to suspend or stay the order pending its appeal. Where a stay is granted, the lower-court decision cannot be executed while the higher court’s appeal is pending. In Kanu’s case, the Federal Government successfully ran the appeal to the Supreme Court and effectively obtained a process that stayed the appellate acquittal while the appeal was heard. That explains how an acquittal can exist on paper but not in effect. (See reports of the December 2023 Supreme Court decision that vacated the appeal court’s discharge and remitted the trial.)
Grounds of the acquittal vs. finality doctrines: appellate courts sometimes discharge an accused on narrow technical grounds — for instance, lack of jurisdiction or procedural irregularity about how the accused was brought before the court. Other courts may acknowledge the illegality of the arrest or rendition yet hold that the irregularity does not necessarily extinguish the State’s right to prosecute on the underlying substantive charges. The competing doctrines (remedy by exclusion of evidence, dismissal for abuse of process, or continuation of trial despite irregularities) produce different practical outcomes. The Supreme Court in Kanu’s case accepted that the rendition was unlawful but concluded the prosecution could nonetheless proceed in the criminal courts.
Remittal and re‑filing: sometimes, a higher court will set aside an acquittal and remit the matter to a lower court for trial (or re-trial) rather than ordering immediate release. That is effectively what happened in December 2023: the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeal’s acquittal and allowed the prosecution’s case to proceed, which meant Kanu remained in detention pending trial steps.
Bail denials and medical/remand orders: even where a trial is pending, accused persons can apply for bail; but courts sometimes deny bail on public-order grounds or for reasons relating to the severity of charges. Kanu has had multiple bail applications denied by lower courts since the Supreme Court decision, and remand orders have kept him in custody.
Put together, these legal mechanisms mean that a finding of illegality in one thread of the case (e.g., on rendition) does not automatically translate into immediate liberty where appeals, stays, remittal orders, and bail denials intervene. That is the technical explanation. But technicality alone cannot explain the deep public sense that something is inconsistent, unfair, or politically motivated — nor should it absolve the system from scrutiny.
Beyond mechanics: law, legitimacy, and public perception
The Kanu case exposes a deeper problem in how legal outcomes interact with legitimacy and public confidence.
The optics of double-standards. When citizens see a court say “discharged and acquitted” and then see the same person remain in custody, it looks like the state is disregarding judicial orders. Even if legal process explains the hold-up, the optics are corrosive. That damage is magnified where political passions and ethnic identities are engaged — as with IPOB and the south-east — and where claims of executive interference in the judiciary are widely suspected.
Fragmented messaging from judges and institutions. Different courts use different vocabularies — “discharge,” “quash,” “remit,” “set aside,” “vacate” — and these are not always readily translated into plain language for the public. A Supreme Court that says rendition was unlawful but permits trial leaves a seeming paradox: recognition of state wrongdoing on one hand, and endorsement of continued prosecution on the other. This mixed messaging breeds confusion and distrust.
Perceived political interference. Courts in many countries are vulnerable to accusations of political pressure; Nigeria is no exception. When lower-court judgments favourable to a high-profile opponent of the state are immediately appealed and stayed, allegations of lawfare — the use of legal mechanisms to achieve political ends — are inevitable. Whether those allegations are true in any given instance, the perception alone undermines confidence in impartial justice. Numerous commentators and civil-society voices have framed Kanu’s detention in political terms.
Human-rights stakes. Independent of criminal procedure, credible allegations of extraordinary rendition — and of poor detention conditions — raise human-rights concerns that go beyond the courts’ technical reasoning. International lawyers and organisations have asked why a person found to have been illegally abducted abroad would nevertheless be kept in conditions allegedly harmful to his health and well-being. The Kanu case therefore sits at the intersection of criminal law, international law, and human-rights obligations.
When law, legitimacy, and human-rights claims collide, the system’s ability to resolve the conflict quickly and transparently is the acid test of institutional strength. On that measure, many critics argue Nigeria has performed poorly.
Is the problem legal or political? — The answer is: both
It’s tempting to frame the Kanu saga solely as a legal knot to be untied by lawyers and judges. But law does not operate in a vacuum. Two interlocking realities are at play:
Legal reality: The Supreme Court’s authority to review and vacate lower-court decisions is part of normal appellate structure. Stays pending appeal, remittal to lower courts, and refusal of bail are legally defensible actions where the judiciary follows procedure.
Political reality: The criminal prosecution of a divisive political actor, against a backdrop of national security claims and secessionist tensions, is inherently political. Decisions about detention conditions, prosecutorial zeal, and the pace of process are influenced (or perceived to be influenced) by political calculation.
Thus the inconsistency is not just jurisprudential hair-splitting — it is a symptom of weak institutional safeguards that allow political priorities to be advanced under the cover of legal form. The result is predictable: the public reads the paper judgments and draws political conclusions.
The consequences — legal, social, and constitutional
The unresolved tension around Kanu’s detention produces several concrete consequences:
Erosion of public trust in courts. When apparently final judgments are reversed or stayed in ways that lack clear, accessible explanation, citizens’ trust in impartial adjudication erodes.
Risk of radicalisation. For IPOB supporters and those already skeptical of the federal centre, perceived injustice strengthens narratives that the system is rigged — narratives that can fuel radicalisation or civil unrest.
International embarrassment and pressure. The case has attracted UK courts’ interest, international law firms, and human-rights organisations, generating diplomatic and reputational costs for Nigeria. The UK family litigation and commentary from international legal actors underscore that the state’s handling of high-profile legal cases has cross-border implications.
Precedent for executive leverage over courts. If executive agencies can repeatedly neutralise unfavourable rulings through procedural appeals, transfers, and re-filings, this may establish a troubling template for future prosecutions.
Those consequences together point to an urgent need for reform — not only to prevent inconsistent outcomes, but to restore procedural clarity and public confidence.
Practical reforms to reduce “discharged-but-still-detained” paradoxes
Here are reforms — legal, procedural, and institutional — that would reduce the chance that similar contradictions arise:
Mandatory, time-limited stays with written reasons. If a higher court grants a stay of a lower-court acquittal, the stay order should be time-limited (e.g., 60–90 days) and accompanied by a publicly available written reason explaining why liberty is deferred. Time limits force the prosecution to move quickly or release the accused.
Transparent bail frameworks for interlocutory periods. Where convictions are vacated and appeals are pending, courts should default toward bail unless clear, articulated risks exist. The presumption of liberty should be stronger during prolonged appellate processes.
Clearer remedies for unlawful rendition. When courts find that an accused was illegally brought into the state, legislation or judicial guidelines should delineate the available remedies (e.g., exclusion of evidence, prohibition of trial, or other remedies) to avoid contradictory judicial outcomes.
Publication of court orders in plain language. Judicial offices should publish accessible summaries of key rulings (what was decided, the legal basis, and immediate practical effect) to reduce confusion and misinterpretation by the public.
Stronger judicial independence safeguards. Transparent processes for judicial appointments and protections against executive interference will reduce suspicions that political pressure drives outcomes.
Independent review of detention conditions. Particularly in cases touching on human rights or rendition, independent monitors (ombudsman, prison inspectorates, or international observers) should be allowed to inspect and report publicly on detainees’ conditions promptly.
These reforms are not novel; they are standard best practices in many democracies. What matters is political will: without commitment to timely implementation, reform proposals will remain words on paper.
What the Kanu case teaches about the rule of law in Nigeria
The Kanu story is a test case. It reveals that the rule of law is not only about the correctness of individual judgments but about coherence across the system. A legal system that allows meaningful rights violations to be recognised in one judgment and then effectively nullified through procedural device in another undermines its own legitimacy.
Three lessons stand out:
Rights without remedies are fragile. Recognition that rendition was unlawful is meaningful only if it triggers remedies that vindicate the right. Acknowledgement without relief breeds cynicism.
Procedural fairness matters as much as substantive law. The pace of appeals, the availability of bail, and the clarity of orders determine whether justice is felt to be done.
Transparency is the corrective medicine. More transparent court orders, timely judicial reasoning, and publicly accessible processes would dramatically reduce the perception (and reality) of inconsistency.
Final thoughts and a challenge
Nigerians deserve a justice system where outcomes are either final or clearly provisional — not trapped in a fog of procedural limbo. The Nnamdi Kanu case will continue to be politically explosive, but the remedy does not depend on any single party. It depends on systemic fixes: clearer appellate rules, better bail practice, stronger judicial independence, and more transparent communication.
As a closing challenge to stakeholders: if courts and the executive value legitimacy — if they want citizens to have confidence even in decisions they dislike — they should adopt small but concrete measures (time-limited stays, plain-language judgments, routine bail presumption in interlocutory appeals) that build predictability into the system. The absence of such measures is what turns technically defensible litigation strategies into public crises of confidence.
Nnamdi Kanu’s case will be written about for years. The legal technicalities will keep lawyers busy; yet the public lesson is simple and urgent: a legal system that permits discharge on one hand and prolonged detention on the other cannot credibly claim to be administering justice fairly. Fix the procedure, fix the optics — and you go a long way to restoring trust.
Sources (selected major references)
Reuters — “Nigeria Supreme Court blocks release of separatist leader Kanu” (reporting on the Supreme Court decision of 15 December 2023 that vacated the appellate acquittal and allowed trial proceedings).
Associated Press — coverage of the Supreme Court decision and the order that Kanu remain in custody while trial proceedings continue.
Reuters / AP reporting and other outlets on bail denials and trial scheduling after the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling.
Bindmans LLP / UK legal commentary and the High Court materials discussing the extraordinary rendition and its human-rights implications.
Local Nigerian reporting and opinion pieces documenting ongoing detention and public reaction (Vanguard, Premium Times, The Nation).
0 comments:
Post a Comment