THE JUDICIAL FRAUD IN THE CASE OF MAZI NNAMDI KANU — IN PLAIN LANGUAGE
Christopher Chidera, Esq.
12 September 2026
They did not try him. They kept changing the story so the story would never have to end.
Read this as if you have never opened a law book.
- They snatched him for one case. They charged him with another.
The government said it brought Mazi Nnamdi Kanu from Kenya to finish an old case — treasonable felony, the 2015 charge sheet. [First arraignment, 2015: Main Record, Vol. 1, pp. 62–65.]
When he got to court in October 14, 2021, that treasonable felony was not the charge they read to him.
They gave him a new terrorism charge. New dates. New broadcasts. New offences. He had to plead again, like a man starting a new trial. [Amended 15-count information pleaded under the TPAA 2011 as amended in 2013 and CEMA: Main Record, Vol. 1, pp. 289–291; post-rendition re-arraignment and fresh plea: Appellant’s Brief, Statement of Facts, paras. 2.2.3, 2.5.]
Almost everything that later earned him life in prison happened on that new sheet — things said in 2018, 2021, sit-at-home of 30 May 2021, alleged attacks on security — not the old felony case he supposedly came back to finish. [Conviction on seven counts, life on counts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, 20 years on count 3, five years on Count 7: FHC Judgment, 20 November 2025, Main Record, Vol. 2, p. 1206.]
Only one old piece survived: the radio transmitter from 2015. That one did not carry the life sentence. [Count 7 / former Count 15, pleaded as “Criminal Code Act Cap C45”: Additional Record, Vol. II, p. 1219, lines 14–19.]
They kept the old court number so it would look like the same case. A number is not a charge. This was a new case wearing an old label. [Same Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 throughout.]
Why this is fraud: Fraud is selling one thing and delivering another. They told the country — and later the Supreme Court — that the rendition was to continue an existing trial. What they persecuted was a new accusation. Keeping the old file number was the wrapper on the lie. You cannot honestly call a fresh terrorism plea “the same case” and then use that lie to justify the kidnapping. [SC itself found “forceful abduction,” “kidnap,” and “extraordinary rendition”: Additional Record, Vol. II, pp. 1161, 1172, 1174, per Agim JSC.]
- A higher court threw the case out. They used a civil trick to keep him in DSS cell.
On 13 October 2022, the Court of Appeal did not postpone the trial. It ended it. The charges were struck out. He was discharged. In ordinary English: the criminal case was over. [CoA Judgment, 13 October 2022, per Adefope-Okojie JCA: “the lower Court thus has no jurisdiction… to try the Appellant on Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 15… any Court in this country is divested of jurisdiction to entertain charges against the Appellant… The resolution of this issue in favour of the Appellant disposes of this appeal.” Main Record, Vol. 2, p. 1116; also pp. 1198–1200.]
You cannot “pause” a case that has already been thrown out. That is like cancelling a football match and then padlocking the stadium so the other team cannot leave.
Fifteen days later, another panel used a tool meant for civil cases — money, land, contracts — to “stay” a criminal discharge. That tool was not built for this. It kept the man. It did not bring the charge back to life. [Civil stay of 28 October 2022; Appellant’s Brief, para. 2.3.2; Vaswani Trading Co. v. Savalakh & Co. (1972) 12 SC 77.]
From that day, what they called a “pending trial” was a man in a cell and a piece of paper that no longer charged him with anything. [Fourteen months’ detention after discharge without valid remand: Appellant’s Brief, para. 2.5.10; Constitution, s. 35(1).]
Why this is fraud: Fraud is pretending a dead thing is still alive so you can keep using it. After 13 October there was no criminal charge left to hold him on. A civil stay was used as a counterfeit warrant. Detention without a live charge is not “process.” It is custody sold to the public as a trial that no longer existed.
- The law book says “try him again.” The judgment said “continue.”
When the Supreme Court hears a criminal appeal that had been terminated by the Court of Appeal, the written law gives it a clear option: order a retrial. Start again. New hearing. Proper charge. [Supreme Court Act, s. 26: the Court “may order the case to be retried by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Section 22 speaks of rehearing, not continuation of a terminated count.]
The judge, Lawal Garba, did not use that word. He said continuation. [SC Judgment, 15 December 2023: remittal for “continuation of trial” on seven counts; Additional Record, Vol. II, p. 1233, per Lawal Garba JSC.]
Continuation means the old trial never died. Retrial means you admit it died and you start honestly. [Constitution, s. 36(9): further trial after conviction or acquittal only “upon the order of a superior court”; Ezeugo v. FRN (2019) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1701) 388 (SC).]
They needed “continuation” because only that word lets them keep the 2015 file number, skip a clean new charge under today’s law, and pretend nothing ended in October 2022.
That word is not in the criminal part of the Supreme Court Act. They brought it from the government’s story, not from the statute.
Why this is fraud: Fraud is using the wrong label so the rules that would stop you do not apply. “Retrial” would have forced a living charge and a new beginning. “Continuation” was chosen because it hides the death of the case. A word that is not in the Act was used as if it were a power. That is counterfeit jurisdiction.
- A judge naming count numbers is not the same as charging a man.
The Supreme Court listed counts — 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 15 — and said the Court of Appeal was wrong to block them. [SC holding that CoA was wrong that the court lacked jurisdiction to try those counts: Additional Record, Vol. II; CoA had named the same counts at p. 1116.]
Listing leftovers is not writing a charge. A charge is an accusation laid under a living law, read to the accused, answered by a plea. [Garba JSC’s own gateway: “(a) Are the Statutes or Acts stated in the charge valid and subsisting legislations…?” Only “if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative” does jurisdiction over the offence arise. Additional Record, Vol. II, pp. 1208–1209.]
No Nigerian law says: “The Supreme Court may switch dead counts back on.” Courts get their power from the Constitution and from Acts of the National Assembly. Not from implication. Not from convenience.
If the power exists, show the section. There is no section. [Same judgment: “Not even the Supreme Court can confer jurisdiction where none exists.” Additional Record, Vol. II, p. 1232, lines 20–25.]
Why this is fraud: Fraud is claiming a power you were never given. A list of numbers in a judgment is not an information. Treating those numbers as restored accusations is passing off an appellate paragraph as a charge sheet. No statute authorised that switch. Doing it anyway is using the robe to mint what only the law can mint.
- The same judgment demanded a living law. Then they used a dead one.
Garba himself said a court may try him only if the facts show an offence created by written law. [Additional Record, Vol. II, pp. 1208–1209, Prong (a); Constitution, s. 36(12).]
That is the Constitution talking. You cannot convict a person unless the crime and the punishment are written in a law that still exists on the day you convict him. [Constitution, s. 36(12); State v. Egigia (2024) LPELR-62009(SC) at pp. 14–18: “A repealed law has no legal life. It cannot ground a conviction under Section 36(12).”]
In 2022, the National Assembly repealed the 2013 terrorism law — that is, the TPAA 2011 as amended in 2013 — and passed a new one. [TPPA 2022, s. 98(1); commencement: 12 May 2022.] By the time the Supreme Court sat in December 2023, the old Act had been dead for over a year. By the day Omotosho convicted him — 20 November 2025 — it had been dead for more than three years. [CEMA also dead from 20 April 2023: NCSA 2023, s. 34.]
They convicted him on the dead law anyway. [FHC Judgment, 20 November 2025, convicting under the TPAA 2011 as amended in 2013 and CEMA: Main Record, Vol. 2, pp. 1206–1349; “smooth transition” under s. 98(3) TPPA invoked sua sponte at judgment p. 1328.]
On 4 November 2025 the trial court itself said: “if there is no written law, then you cannot be convicted.” [Main Record, Vol. 2, pp. 985–987.] Then it convicted under the repealed statutes.
Why this is fraud: Fraud is citing the rule and then breaking the same rule. The judgment demanded a written law in force. The conviction used a statute the National Assembly had already killed. You cannot tell the country the Constitution requires a living book and then sentence a man from a buried one. That is false pretence dressed as legality.
- He asked a simple question. They would not answer it.
In court he said: show me the law. [4 November 2025: Main Record, Vol. 2, pp. 983–990; 20 November 2025: “my charge sheet, as presently constituted, does not reveal or disclose any written law in Nigeria … It doesn’t exist.” Additional Record, Vol. II, p. 1703.]
Not the old repealed Act.
Not a “savings clause.”
Not “we assume without conceding.”
Show the book that was alive on the day of judgment, and the page that creates this crime and this punishment.
A savings clause can keep a case from collapsing midstream. It cannot climb into the grave, pull out a buried statute, and use it to lock a man up for life. [TPPA 2022, s. 97 is headed “Savings and Transitional Provision.” Things done under the repealed Acts, if in force at commencement, “shall” continue and have effect as if made, issued, given or done under the corresponding provisions of this Act. Section 98(1) is the repeal. Section 98(2)–(3) are not charging statutes. No corresponding TPPA 2022 provision was ever placed in the charge, the plea, or the conviction.]
They would not move the case onto the 2022 Act because that Act is harder on the prosecutor. It has extra filters the old law did not have. So they kept the corpse. [Evidence Act, s. 122 — judicial notice of repeal was mandatory and was invoked on the record: Main Record, Vol. 2, pp. 928–931.]
Why this is fraud: Fraud is hiding the document that would expose the deal. The Constitution’s question is simple. They refused the answer because the true answer — the 2022 Act — does not carry this conviction. Choosing the dead book to avoid the living one is not judging. It is steering the result.
- The life sentence is not the case they kidnapped him to finish.
Remember the official story: snatched from Kenya to complete the old trial. [SC: abduction/kidnap/extraordinary rendition, Additional Record, Vol. II, pp. 1161, 1172, 1174.]
Now look at what put him in Sokoto for life: the new terrorism counts, filed after the kidnapping, pleaded after the kidnapping, decided under a law already repealed. [FHC Judgment, 20 November 2025, Main Record, Vol. 2, p. 1206; directional incarceration at Sokoto, judgment p. 1335.]
That is not finishing a case. That is building a second case on the back of an abduction and calling it the first.
The High Court of Enugu State had already held that the practical application of the Terrorism Prevention Act which led to his arrest, detention and prosecution as leader of IPOB was unconstitutional, and that self-determination is not a crime. It also recited Section 36(12): a person cannot be prosecuted for a non-existent offence. [Onovo J, Suit No. E/20/2023, 26 October 2023, pp. 60–62.]
Why this is fraud: Fraud is the bait-and-switch at the point of sale. The bait was “finish the old trial.” The product was life on a new charge. Every official statement that still says he is serving time for the case he was brought back to face is a false description of the judgment.
- Every time the door opened, they changed the lock.
When the kidnapping should have stopped the trial, they said: sue for damages, but stay in the dock. [SC: rights violation is a civil remedy; trial may proceed — Additional Record, Vol. II.]
When the Court of Appeal ended the charges, they said: stay of execution. [28 October 2022.]
When the Act said retrial, they said: continuation. [SC Act s. 26 vs Garba remittal, Additional Record, Vol. II, p. 1233.]
When the Constitution demanded a living law, they said: savings clause. [TPPA 2022, s. 97; judgment p. 1328 invoking s. 98(3).]
When he asked to see the 2022 Act, they said: we will assume it without using it. [Main Record, Vol. 2, pp. 934–937, 985–987; judgment silent on the reserved objections, Vol. 2, pp. 1206–1349.]
One man. Five stories. None of them the same case.
The Respondent’s own Cross-Appeal admits the trial court “acted without jurisdiction when it imposed the sentence of life imprisonment.” [Notice dated 15 January 2026, Ground One: Main Record, Vol. 2, pp. 1362–1364.]
That is not a string of honest mistakes. That is a method. Keep the body. Change the paper.
Why this is fraud: Fraud is a scheme, not a slip. One contradiction can be error. Five, always moving in the same direction — toward keeping him locked — is design. Each new legal object was manufactured to replace the one that had just failed. That is the definition of a constructed result.
WHAT MUST NOW BE SAID IN PUBLIC
A conviction is not a speech. It is a legal object. It needs three things at the same time:
A charge that still exists.
A trial that was not already thrown out.
A written law still in force on the day of judgment.
After 13 October 2022, the charge was gone. [CoA, Main Record, Vol. 2, p. 1116.]
After the fresh terrorism plea, it was not the 2015 trial. [Main Record, Vol. 1, pp. 289–291.]
On 20 November 2025, the TPAA 2011 as amended in 2013 was not the law. [TPPA 2022, s. 98(1); FHC Judgment, Vol. 2, pp. 1206–1349.]
Take any one of those away and the judgment is empty. Take all three away and it is a constructed imprisonment.
Why the whole structure is fraud: A genuine trial is one accusation, one process, one living statute. This file is a collage. Each piece was glued on after the last piece fell off. The public was told it was a single continuous case. It was not. Passing a collage off as a trial is the fraud.
The Government can answer whether “proceedings survived” under section 97 and still lose the only questions that matter:
What exactly was continued?
Which corresponding provision of this Act defined the offence and prescribed the punishment?
Where is that provision in the charge, the plea, the trial, and the conviction?
The Court of Appeal does not need to fight the Supreme Court. It only needs to ask the question a child can understand — the same question Garba himself wrote as Prong (a):
What case was still alive — and which book of law, stated in the charge, made these acts a crime on the day you locked him up? [Additional Record, Vol. II, pp. 1208–1209.]
If the Federal Government cannot put that book on the table, this is not justice. It is paperwork built to hold a man.
Show me the law.
— Christopher Chidera, Esq.
SOURCE KEY
CoA Judgment, 13 October 2022 — per Adefope-Okojie JCA, Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015 [Main Record, Vol. 2, pp. 1076–1129, at p. 1116; also pp. 1198–1200].
SC Judgment, 15 December 2023 — FRN v. Kanu, SC/CR/1361/2022, per Lawal Garba JSC [Additional Record, Vol. II, pp. 1208–1233].
FHC Judgment, 20 November 2025 — per Omotosho J [Main Record, Vol. 2, pp. 1206–1349].
Charge / plea / seisin — Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015; 15-count amended information; trial resume 21 March 2025 [Main Record, Vol. 1, pp. 62–65, 289–291; Vol. 2, pp. 928–937, 983–990].
Constitution, ss. 35(1), 36(9), 36(12).
Evidence Act 2011, s. 122.
Supreme Court Act, ss. 22, 26.
TPPA 2022, ss. 97–98.
CEMA repealed by Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023, s. 34 (20 April 2023).
High Court of Enugu State, Suit No. E/20/2023, Onovo J, 26 October 2023, pp. 60–62.
