How Nnamdi Kanu’s case tests Nigeria’s commitment to rule of law, by Al-Ibenu

The conviction of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has not brought an end to the constitutional and legal debate surrounding one of Nigeria’s most consequential criminal proceedings in recent history. Although the Federal High Court found Kanu guilty on terrorism-related charges, legal scholars and policy analysts continue to examine broader questions concerning due process, jurisdiction, the rule of law, and Nigeria’s obligations under domestic and international law.

Among those contributing to the discussion is Nigerian Merchant Navy Officer and Research Journalist, Mujahid Al-Ibenu, who maintains that the legal significance of the case extends beyond the conviction itself.

“Every constitutional democracy is ultimately judged not merely by the verdicts delivered in its courts, but by the fairness, consistency, and legality of the processes that produce those verdicts,” Al-Ibenu said.

According to Al-Ibenu, the conclusion of criminal proceedings does not necessarily conclude legitimate legal discourse. He argues that constitutional democracies encourage continued scholarly examination of judicial decisions, particularly where questions of procedural fairness, jurisdiction, and fundamental rights have attracted sustained domestic and international attention.

Read also: Simon Ekpa defies Nnamdi Kalu insists on Monday ‘sit-at-home’

“The conviction represents one stage of the legal process,” he said. “History demonstrates that landmark cases are often remembered as much for the constitutional principles they establish as for their ultimate outcomes.”

For Al-Ibenu, the principal issue has never been whether the Nigerian state possesses the authority to prosecute offences relating to national security. Rather, he contends that the legitimacy of every prosecution ultimately depends upon strict compliance with constitutional safeguards guaranteed to every accused person.

“The rule of law derives its strength from equal application. Constitutional guarantees cannot fluctuate according to the popularity or unpopularity of an accused person. Their purpose is precisely to restrain governmental power through law.”

Legal discussion surrounding the case has continued to focus upon Kanu’s transfer from Kenya to Nigeria in 2021. The Kenyan High Court subsequently ruled that his removal violated protections guaranteed under the Constitution of Kenya, describing the operation as unlawful under Kenyan law. While that judgment did not determine criminal liability before Nigerian courts, it remains an important point of reference in comparative discussions concerning cross-border apprehension, extraordinary rendition, and the legal consequences of procedural irregularities.

Al-Ibenu believes the Kenyan judgment illustrates an important constitutional principle applicable beyond the facts of a single case.

“Courts derive public confidence not solely from punishing wrongdoing, but from demonstrating that justice itself has been administered according to law. Due process protects the integrity of judicial institutions as much as it protects the individual.”

The legal debate surrounding unlawful apprehension has produced differing judicial approaches internationally. The United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992), held that an unlawful cross-border abduction did not necessarily deprive domestic courts of jurisdiction. By contrast, courts in other jurisdictions, including South Africa and the European Court of Human Rights, have emphasised that constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations remain applicable even in cases involving serious national security concerns.

According to Al-Ibenu, these differing authorities demonstrate that constitutional democracies continually seek to balance state security with individual rights.

“National security and constitutional liberty should never be viewed as competing objectives. A democratic state demonstrates its strength by protecting both.”

The analyst further notes that several respected Nigerian jurists have consistently emphasized the centrality of due process within constitutional governance. The late Chief Gani Fawehinmi, SAN, frequently argued that adherence to lawful procedure is indispensable to justice, while the late Justice Chukwudifu Oputa repeatedly maintained that governments remain subject to the law they administer. Internationally, the late Lord Tom Bingham described the rule of law as requiring that every person and every public authority remain accountable under publicly administered laws.

International legal observers have likewise continued to examine aspects of the proceedings. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention previously expressed concerns regarding Kanu’s detention under international human rights standards. Although opinions of the Working Group are not binding upon Nigerian courts, legal scholars generally regard such opinions as persuasive within the broader framework of international human rights discourse.

For Al-Ibenu, the lasting importance of the proceedings lies in their constitutional legacy rather than their political significance.

“Whether one agrees or disagrees with Mr. Kanu’s views is ultimately separate from the constitutional questions his case has raised. Democracies mature through rigorous adherence to legal principle, consistency before the law, and public confidence in judicial independence.”

As legal commentary continues following the conviction, constitutional scholars agree that the proceedings will likely remain an important point of reference in Nigerian jurisprudence for years to come. Beyond the individual defendant, the case has prompted continuing discussion on judicial independence, due process, national security, constitutional accountability, and the evolving relationship between domestic law and international legal obligations.