Nnamdi Kanu, Nigeria’s Courtroom Circus And A Legal Farce in Full Display

Nnamdi Kanu, Nigeria’s Courtroom Circus And A Legal Farce in Full Display The trial of Nnamdi Kanu has once again exposed the troubling inco...

Nnamdi Kanu, Nigeria’s Courtroom Circus And A Legal Farce in Full Display

The trial of Nnamdi Kanu has once again exposed the troubling inconsistencies in Nigeria’s judicial process. What should be a straightforward legal proceeding has turned into an embarrassing display of legal contradictions, as the government clings to outdated laws in a desperate bid to secure a conviction.  

The core issue is simple; the government is attempting to prosecute Kanu under the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act (TPPA) 2013, a law that no longer exists. The 2013 Act was repealed and replaced by the  TPPA 2022, yet the prosecution insists that the trial is merely a continuation of an old case, relying on Section 98(3) to justify their claim. However, a de novo trial means a fresh start, not the resuscitation of a defunct legal framework.  

Nigeria’s constitution is clear. No one shall be punished under a law that was not in effect at the time of the alleged offense. By insisting on using a repealed law, the government is openly violating Kanu’s constitutional right to a fair trial. This is not just a legal misstep. It is a direct assault on the rule of law and judicial integrity.  

Beyond the legal technicalities, this trial raises serious questions about the Nigerian government’s commitment to justice. If the case against Kanu is as strong as the authorities claim, why resort to procedural shortcuts and legal acrobatics? Why not prosecute him under the current law and allow the judicial process to run its proper course? Instead, the government’s approach reeks of desperation, as if the outcome of the trial has already been decided and the law is merely an inconvenience.  

This situation has not gone unnoticed by the international community. The world is watching, and Nigeria’s legal system risks becoming a subject of ridicule. A country that claims to uphold democratic principles cannot afford to handle legal matters in such a haphazard manner. The damage extends beyond Kanu’s case it erodes public trust in the judiciary and sets a dangerous precedent for future trials.  

If Nigeria is serious about justice, it must abandon this flawed prosecution and ensure that all legal proceedings adhere to constitutional principles. Anything less would confirm what many already suspect that this is not a fair trial, but a political vendetta dressed in legal robes.

Family Writers Press International