THE REAL THEATRE IS IN ABUJA, NOT IPOB: A LEGAL DEMOLITION OF THE “THEATRICAL SEARCH FOR NNAMDI KANU’S ACQUITTAL” PROPAGANDA
THE REAL THEATRE IS IN ABUJA, NOT IPOB: A LEGAL DEMOLITION OF THE “THEATRICAL SEARCH FOR NNAMDI KANU’S ACQUITTAL” PROPAGANDA
When faceless authors, hiding under government mouthpieces like Authority Newspaper, churn out propaganda against the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), it becomes both laughable and tragic. Laughable because of the ignorance displayed, tragic because of the calculated attempt to deceive the public with falsehoods.
The article titled “IPOB’s Theatrical Search for Nnamdi Kanu’s Acquittal” is itself the very definition of political theatre. Let us dismantle it systematically with reason, logic and law.
- APC IS THE REAL TERRORIST
A Canadian Superior Court — sitting in a jurisdiction where justice is not for sale — recently declared Nigeria’s ruling party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), and its partner in corruption, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), as terrorist organizations.
This is a legally binding foreign judgment that carries weight under the principle of international comity of courts. Thus, while APC-controlled propaganda outlets call IPOB a terrorist group, the civilized world has already branded APC itself as the terrorist. The irony is self-evident.
- ILLEGAL RENDITION: A FATAL FLAW
The Nigerian government abducted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya in June 2021 in a classic case of extraordinary rendition — an act prohibited under both domestic Nigerian and international law.
The Court of Appeal in FRN v. Kanu (CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022, judgment delivered 13 October 2022) held:
“The extraordinary rendition of the Appellant is a violation of his fundamental rights and renders the entire proceedings a nullity.” (p. 65, per Oludotun Adefope-Okojie JCA).
Instead of respecting this binding judgment, the Nigerian Supreme Court in its 15 December 2023 ruling (SC/CR/1364/2022) somersaulted, violating centuries of settled law by remitting a case that had already been nullified. That, dear reader, is the real theatre.
- PROSECUTION ON A REPEALED LAW
The prosecution insists on trying Mazi Nnamdi Kanu under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 (TPAA 2013), a law that had been repealed by Section 49 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 (TPPA 2022).
Section 36(8) of the Constitution is crystal clear:
“No person shall be held to be guilty of a criminal offence on account of any act or omission that did not, at the time it took place, constitute an offence under the law.”
In FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 113 at 175, the Supreme Court held:
“Where a statute creating an offence is repealed, the offence and all liabilities created thereunder die a natural death.”
Therefore, every count predicated on the TPAA 2013 is a legal corpse. Yet the Nigerian judiciary continues to entertain it. That is theatre of the absurd. If you don’t know that in Nigerian criminal law jurisprudence that a repealed law cannot sustain a prosecution, then I am sorry I can’t help you. You need to go back to law school and be properly tutored.
- NO PROOF OF ACTUS REUS OR MENS REA
The propaganda writer forgets the basics of criminal law: the prosecution must prove both actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind).
But what is the evidence?
No victim.
No weapon.
No violent act attributed personally to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
At best, speeches and broadcasts — which are constitutionally protected under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 9 of the African Charter.
In Nwankwo v. The State (1983) 1 NCR 366, the Supreme Court warned that:
“Mere expression of opinion, however distasteful to government, cannot constitute a criminal offence unless it falls squarely within the statutory definition.”
Thus, criminalizing speech is nothing but dictatorship dressed as law.
- DISCHARGE BY AN APPELLATE COURT IS AN ACQUITTAL
It is settled law that where an appellate court finds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, or that the charge itself is fundamentally defective, the proper order is not a mere “discharge” but an acquittal, because the accused can never be tried again on the same void process.
The Supreme Court in Abacha v. The State (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 437 at 499, paras. E–F (per Uwaifo JSC) held emphatically:
“Where a charge is incurably bad, a discharge of the accused amounts to an acquittal, because such a charge cannot be resurrected against him without violating the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy.”
Similarly, in Ezeze v. The State (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 894) 491 at 521, paras. F–G, the Court of Appeal reiterated:
“A discharge of an accused person by an appellate court, once it is predicated upon a finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the charge was fundamentally defective, operates as an acquittal.”
And in Oladipo v. The State (2013) LPELR-19979 (SC), the Supreme Court reinforced that an appellate order of discharge, where the information is void, “terminates the proceedings finally in favour of the accused, amounting to an acquittal.”
Therefore, when IPOB demands acquittal for Nnamdi Kanu, it is not a matter of semantics but a constitutional necessity. Since the charges are founded on a repealed statute (TPAA 2013) and brought in violation of jurisdiction through extraordinary rendition, any order of “discharge” by an appellate court is in law an acquittal. To call it otherwise would expose Kanu to the spectre of double jeopardy expressly forbidden under Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
- THE REAL THEATRE
Theatrics are not in IPOB’s demand for acquittal. The real theatrics are:
A Supreme Court that upholds a repealed law.
A prosecution that cannot prove actus reus or mens rea.
A government that commits international crimes yet seeks to sit in judgment over its victim.
Propaganda outlets that hide under faceless authorship instead of engaging the law.
CONCLUSION
The faceless author of “IPOB’s Theatrical Search for Nnamdi Kanu’s Acquittal” is either incapable of understanding law or deliberately pushing APC propaganda. IPOB is not begging for acquittal; IPOB is demanding justice under the Constitution and international law.
The world should remember: APC is already branded a terrorist organization by a civilized court abroad. IPOB’s only “crime” is asking for self-determination. The theatre is not in IPOB’s agitation, but in Abuja’s kangaroo courts and propaganda machines.
History, like law, is on IPOB’s side.
Author is a senior analyst & contributor to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium. He is based in Abuja, Nigeria.
Hi welcome to my website 