21/08/2025
YOU CANNOT BUILD CRIMINAL JUSTICE ON AN EX PARTE ORDER
— BARR. CHRISTOPHER CHIDERA.
DATE: 21 AUGUST 2025
We make this statement with one purpose: to let Justice Omotosho and conscientious humanity know that we are all armed with facts and the law. Nigeria has no case against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from inception.
Our collective lack of diligence in the past made it possible for Justices Binta Nyako, Haruna Tsammani, and Garba Mohammed Lawal to quite literally get away with murder — by turning the law and commonsense upside down. We will not allow this to happen again. We have taken the unusual step of reminding Justice Omotosho what the law says and making clear that the whole world is watching.
Ex Parte Proscription is Void Ab Initio
The 2017 proscription of IPOB was obtained ex parte — without hearing the very movement it sought to outlaw. That single defect renders the order void ab initio.
Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341: A court is competent only if initiated by due process. Denial of fair hearing voids the proceedings.
Garba v. University of Maiduguri (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 550: Any decision without hearing the affected party is a nullity ab initio.
By stripping millions of Biafrans, who are still Nigerians by colonial citizenship, the right to freely associate without hearing them- Kafarati’s ex parte order offended Section 36 of the Constitution of Nigeria at its root.
National Security Cannot Defeat Section 36 of CFRN
It is no defence to say “national security” justified this shortcut.
In Dokubo-Asari v. FRN (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 389) 1284, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 36 (fair hearing and presumption of innocence) remains binding even in grave security cases. The Court warned that rights cannot be suspended on vague security claims.
Section 36 is non-derogable under the Constitution: it cannot be set aside, not even under a state of emergency (see Section 45(2) CFRN 1999).
Moreover, Nigeria is not at war. The Constitution recognizes only formally declared states of war or emergency, neither of which currently exist. Justice Omotosho cannot judicially invent a “war condition” to justify suspension of rights.
Why This Trial Cannot Stand
Void Ab Initio (Section 36(1)): Ex parte proscription is unconstitutional and cannot sustain charges. (Madukolu; Garba).
Double Jeopardy (Section 36(9)): Kanu was discharged and acquitted by the Court of Appeal in 2022. To retry him is unconstitutional.
Repealed Law (Section 36(12)): Charges based on repealed provisions of the Terrorism Act are incompetent (Aoko v. Fagbemi).
No National Security Excuse: Fair hearing cannot be suspended by “security” arguments (Dokubo-Asari). Nigeria is not at war.
Our Demand
Justice must not be built on shortcuts. We call on Justice Omotosho to recognize what the Constitution and binding case law already declare:
A criminal trial cannot be founded on an ex parte proscription.
It cannot proceed in the face of double jeopardy.
It cannot rest on repealed law.
And it cannot be justified by a phantom “national security” imperative.
Nigeria’s peace and unity will never be secured by papering over constitutional breaches. Lawful ends require lawful means. You cannot build justice on an ex parte order.
— Barrister Christopher Chidera Legal Consultant to Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) & Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium
ADDENDUM: LEGAL EXPLAINER (Updated)
Fair Hearing – Non-Derogable
Section 36 CFRN 1999: Guarantees fair hearing and presumption of innocence.
Dokubo-Asari v. FRN (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 389) 1284: Supreme Court confirmed Section 36 is non-derogable. Security concerns do not suspend it.
Section 45 CFRN 1999: Lists grounds for limiting rights in public interest — but does not include Section 36. Fair hearing is absolute.
Implication: Justice Omotosho cannot suspend Section 36 under a “national security” excuse. Nigeria is not at war, and no emergency proclamation derogates fair hearing.
