Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), suffered a significant legal setback on Friday as the Court of Appeal in Abuja struck out his appeal challenging alleged breaches of his fundamental rights by the State Security Service (SSS) and the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).
A three-member panel of justices, in a unanimous judgment, held that the appeal lacked merit and had ultimately become an academic exercise.
The appeal stemmed from an earlier ruling where a Federal High Court had dismissed a lawsuit filed by Mr Kanu. The suit accused the SSS and the AGF of violating his fundamental rights while he was in their custody, specifically concerning his access to family and legal counsel, as well as the conditions of his detention.
Delivering the lead judgment, the appellate court ruled that the entire appeal had been overtaken by events. The key reason cited was the Biafra agitator’s conviction for terrorism offences by another court of competent jurisdiction.
The court reasoned that since Mr. Kanu had already been legally convicted and imprisoned for terrorism, the fundamental rights issues raised in his appeal, which focused largely on pre-conviction custody conditions and access, were no longer live issues that required the court’s adjudication. They had essentially become moot.
“The appeal lacks merit and has become academic following the Biafra agitator’s conviction for terrorism offences,” the judge declared.
This ruling effectively closes a major avenue for Mr. Kanu to challenge the legality and conditions surrounding his re-arrest and detention through civil rights litigation.
This judgment is separate from Mr. Kanu’s primary appeal challenging his terrorism conviction itself, which is still pending before the courts. His legal team had sought to use the rights breach case to undermine the foundation of his ongoing detention.
The Federal Government, through the Office of the Attorney-General, has consistently maintained that the SSS provided Mr. Kanu with all rights as stipulated by the law during his detention, noting that his rights were necessarily curtailed due to the severity of the charges and the national security implications of his case.
Notably, the striking out of Mr. Kanu’s fundamental rights appeal represents a strategic loss for the IPOB leader’s legal team. While the decision does not affect his core appeal against the terrorism conviction, it significantly narrows his legal avenues for attacking the state’s handling of his custody.
The Appeal Court’s reasoning, declaring the matter “academic” or “moot,” underscores a powerful principle in Nigerian jurisprudence: courts generally avoid deciding hypothetical or settled issues. By emphasizing the subsequent terrorism conviction, the appellate court effectively washed its hands of the ancillary rights claims. The conviction serves as a judicial barrier, overriding the previous complaints about pre-conviction custody.
This outcome forces Mr. Kanu’s defence to focus all their resources on the direct appeal against the terrorism conviction. It also sends a clear signal that the Nigerian state is determined to withstand challenges to its handling of sensitive national security cases, emphasizing the finality of a terrorism conviction over alleged procedural rights breaches. Many also believe that this ruling, for the Federal Government, is a welcome affirmation of the legal processes that led to the IPOB leader’s current status.
