MAZI NNAMDI KANU: Detention and trial have time constraints, according to ALOY EJIMAKOR
It is no longer news that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case was improperly removed from the Abuja court docket for nearly five months, from September 24th, 2024 to February 10th, 2025, when the infamous hearing-without-jurisdiction was held in the case, resulting in an impasse that has prompted many people to ask: What is the way forward? So, here are some of the answers.
Given the current situation in which every Judge (other than the recused Judge) in the Abuja division of the Federal High Court is unwilling to handle the case, the next lawful thing to do is to transfer the case arbitrarily to any of the Federal High Court divisions in the Southeast, especially since the charges levied against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu are alleged to have occurred in (or had an impact) in Southeast as opposed to Abuja.
To be sure, this fact alone confers far superior (and arguably exclusive) jurisdiction on the Federal High Court divisions located in the Southeast, in accordance with Order 49, Rule 3 of the Federal High Court Rules, Section 45 of the Federal High Court Act, and the famous case of James Ibori vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Thus, transferring the case to Southeast will address the questionable institution of the case in Abuja, which was done under the false impression that the Terrorism Prevention and Amendment Act (an inferior legislation to the Federal High Court Act) conferred universal jurisdiction on the Abuja division of the Federal High Court. So, now that the renowned Abuja division has failed to meet the challenge, it is time to discard this illusion once and for all.
Conversely, suppose there is an official reluctance to do the right thing by having the case heard in Southeast. In that case, it should be dropped immediately because you cannot keep Mazi Nnamdi Kanu in an endless limbo. At the same time, he endures a horrendous detention, awaiting a trial that has become a mirage and a ruse for imprisoning him without conviction. In other words, given that the trial has stagnated to the point where diligent and timely prosecution has hit a stumbling block, keeping Mazi Nnamdi Kanu in prison awaiting a trial that would not take place in the interim, let alone in the foreseeable future, would violate the Constitution.
To be clear, the best practices of the common law adversarial system of criminal justice require that when a State is unable to put a detainee on trial within a reasonable time, the next responsible and lawful option is to release such a detainee on bail until his trial can be conducted properly and lawfully. Otherwise, such a detainee will become a victim of the State’s wrongful or extrajudicial detention.
According to the Constitution, every criminal suspect, particularly a detainee, deserves to be tried within a reasonable time, not indefinitely, and certainly not to be held in jail for nearly four years awaiting a trial that never occurs, through no fault of the detainee but of the State. The Administration of Criminal Justice Act, in particular, requires a prompt trial for every criminal suspect, which becomes even more urgent and compelling when the suspect is detained for an extended period of time.
There is no denying that the Federal Government has had sole control of this case since its commencement. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has no legal duty or capacity to schedule his own trial. Those who accuse him are constitutionally obligated to carry out that task without undue delay and in exact accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
Thus, because the government has demonstrated an inability to bring Mazi Kanu to trial within a reasonable time and in accordance with the Constitution, he should be released immediately through the restoration of his bail or the dismissal of the case.
Written By Aloy Ejimakor
Date: February 13, 2025
Ubochi Nkwo Ikuku
Published by Ugwu Okechukwu (CEO Obinwannem Foundation)
