Nnamdi Kanu’s Million-Naira Challenge: The Curious Case of Nigeria’s Judicial Gymnastics

Nnamdi Kanu’s Million-Naira Challenge: The Curious Case of Nigeria’s Judicial Gymnastics In a society where the blindfold of justice often s...

Nnamdi Kanu’s Million-Naira Challenge: The Curious Case of Nigeria’s Judicial Gymnastics

In a society where the blindfold of justice often slips to reveal eyes that glance at power, wealth, or tribal affiliations, one might wonder if our judicial system still remembers its own rules. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has thrown down a gauntlet that should have every Nigerian law student rifling through legal tomes: find a judicial precedent where a Nigerian judge granted a "stay of execution" in a criminal case where the accused has already been acquitted and discharged. The prize? A whopping N1 million. 

Ah, but the plot thickens. This isn’t just about money; it’s about the naked absurdity of Nigeria legal system’s latest circus act. As the Igbo adage goes, *“When a man is being chased by an ant in the daylight, either the man or the ant has a reason.”*

Kanu’s predicament isn’t just another headline in the Nigerian media; it is a mirror reflecting the grotesque state of a system that appears to twist laws to suit the whims of the powerful. He has been held by the Department of State Services (DSS) since June 2021, despite a Court of Appeal ruling that discharged and acquitted him. Instead of regaining his freedom, Kanu remains locked up as the government dances around the ruling with a “stay of execution” order a concept that, in criminal law, seems as misplaced as a fish in a desert.

What exactly is a stay of execution in criminal proceedings? Typically, it’s a legal mechanism used to pause the enforcement of a judgment. But how does one pause a judgment of acquittal? It’s like saying, “You are free to go, but wait, let’s pretend you’re still guilty while we figure this out.” In simpler terms, this legal paradox is akin to serving a plate of steaming jollof rice and insisting the guest must eat it with a fork that doesn’t exist.

By pledging N1 million, Kanu has not only challenged Nigerian law students but also placed the judiciary under the harsh glare of public scrutiny. If no such precedent exists and it likely doesn’t then what does that say about the legal logic currently being applied in his case? Perhaps we need to carve a new legal principle: “Stay of Execution Pending the Government’s Mood.”

As Igbo say, *“The rat that dances in the middle of the road invites the hawk to its feast.”* This judicial acrobatics has undoubtedly invited ridicule and questions about the independence of Nigeria’s courts. Is justice truly blind, or does it now peek through its blindfold to gauge the political climate?

Imagine a Nigerian courtroom where judges wield gavels like drumsticks in a highlife band. “Your Lordship,” the defense lawyer might argue, “my client has been acquitted.” The judge, with a knowing smile, retorts, “Ah, but the government says he should stay a while longer. Let’s grant a stay of execution.” The gallery erupts in laughter, but the clerk dutifully types it into the record as though this were an ordinary day in court.

This legal farce calls to mind the Igbo proverb, *“The lizard that jumps from the high iroko tree says if no one praises it, it will praise itself.”* Kanu’s N1 million challenge is that self-praise, a pointed reminder that justice must not be a tool wielded by those in power to suppress dissent.

The challenge isn’t just for law students; it’s a call to action for all Nigerians to demand accountability in our legal system. A judiciary that bends to political pressure erodes the trust of the people it is meant to serve. Kanu’s case is not just about one man’s freedom; it’s about the sanctity of the rule of law in a country teetering on the edge of chaos.

As we await a response to this challenge, let us remember the timeless wisdom: *“When the palace guards steal the yam, who will the farmer run to?”* If our courts cannot uphold their own judgments, then where does justice reside? For now, it seems, justice is in detention, waiting for its own “stay of execution.”

Family Writers Press International