Kanu’s Lawyer Faults NBA’s Silence Over ‘Illegal’ Civil Stay

A human rights lawyer, Christopher Chidera, has faulted the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) over its silence on the condition of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, despite what he called Kanu’s discharge by the Court of Appeal.

Kanu was convicted of treason-related charges by the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja in 2025. He has however denied any wrongdoing and has appealed the conviction, which he has claimed is stalled in both the Appeal and Supreme courts.

However, Chidera, who is a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, in an open letter addressed to the NBA and copied to the International Bar Association, a copy of which was shared with THE WHISTLER on Sunday, alleged the Court of Appeal discharged Kanu and quashed the charges against him on October 13, 2022, but that eight days later, a civil stay of execution was procured against the criminal discharge.

“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,” he said.

“Liberty is not a debt,” he added, describing the move as unprecedented since the subject matter was not a monetary or commercial judgment but the liberty of a citizen.

The lawyer noted that Kanu had earlier spent about 14 months in detention without charge following his extraordinary rendition to Nigeria, and that despite his eventual discharge, the state continued to hold him after the civil stay was obtained.

He said the State’s continued detention of Kanu, despite the appellate court’s order, led to contempt proceedings being initiated against the Department of State Services (DSS) and the then Attorney-General, 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 said.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawal-Osula v. Lawal-Osula (1995), Chidera argued that a person in continuing disobedience of a court order is not entitled to the court’s discretion in their favour while the disobedience continues.

“A court does not reward disobedience of its own order,” he said, questioning why this principle was not applied to the State in Kanu’s case.

He also raised the question of jurisdiction, arguing that the Court of Appeal had become functus officio after finally determining the criminal appeal and discharging Kanu, and queried the basis on which a civil procedural mechanism was subsequently deployed to suspend the effect of that final criminal disposition.

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

The lawyer dismissed suggestions that the issues he raised were mere technicalities, insisting that jurisdiction, legality, liberty and the distinction between civil and criminal procedure are foundational to criminal justice.

“Jurisdiction is not a technicality. Legality is not a technicality. Liberty is not a technicality,” he said.

He also drew a comparison between the NBA’s current posture and the legacy of late human rights lawyer, Gani Fawehinmi, whom he said confronted power rather than seeking proximity to it.

“The watchdog has become a lapdog,” he said.

Chidera said the questions raised in his letter were not about whether Kanu should be supported, but about whether the law applies equally to the Nigerian government.

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

He announced that the letter is the first of a three-part series, with the second part expected to address the Supreme Court’s remittal of the case for “continuation” after the Court of Appeal had quashed the counts against Kanu, and the constitutional implications of placing a discharged person back in criminal jeopardy.

“How can a dead criminal case be continued?” he asked.

The third part, according to him, will address the use of the repealed Terrorism Prevention Act 2013, constitutional provisions on written penal law, and the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in State v. Egigia.

Chidera called on the NBA to respond to the questions he raised, including where the legal authority exists for the actions taken in 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, warning that failure to respond would confirm the erosion of the foundations of criminal justice in Nigeria.