The Duty of the Court and the Rule of Law The primary responsibility of a court of law is to safeguard legality, liberty, and constitutional order rather than securing convictions at all costs. When a judgment departs from these fundamental pillars, it ceases to be an act of adjudication and instead becomes an instrument of injustice. The proceedings involving Mazi Nnamdi Kanu represent a significant departure from these principles, appearing as a perversion of justice orchestrated through the trial process.
Jurisdictional Fatalities: Conviction Under Repealed Law A central legal truth in this matter is that the conviction was anchored on proceedings devoid of jurisdiction. Key issues include: - Section 36(12) Violation: The 1999 Constitution forbids conviction for offenses not defined by a law in force at the time of trial. - Use of Repealed Statutes: Mazi Kanu was convicted under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, a statute already replaced by a new legal regime. - Absence of Authority: A court acting under a 'dead law' lacks the inherent jurisdiction to penalize, rendering the entire judicial process void according to the principles in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim.
Judicial Notice and Procedural Errors Despite being alerted to the repeal of the relevant Act, the court failed to address this threshold issue properly: - Section 122 of the Evidence Act: The court was required to take judicial notice of the law's repeal but instead deferred the resolution of its own authority. - Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel: The court acknowledged on record that conviction under a repealed law is illegal, yet proceeded to convict, creating a 'constitutional ambush.' - Functus Officio: As the trial court has delivered its final judgment, it no longer has the power to correct these fundamental errors itself.
International Implications and Extraordinary Rendition The case carries a heavy international dimension that challenges the legitimacy of the domestic proceedings: - Unlawful Rendition: The transition from abduction to trial ignores the fact that jurisdiction cannot arise from executive illegality or 'kidnapping.' - African Charter Obligations: Nigeria’s refusal to confront the implications of unlawful rendition violates binding international human rights obligations. - Judicial Complicity: By ignoring foreign judicial findings regarding the nature of Kanu's arrest, the court risks legitimizing executive overreach.
Conclusion: The Role of the Appellate Courts While the trial court's judgment stands for now, the appellate courts serve as the final firewall against judicial excess. It is essential for the higher courts to quash these proceedings to prevent the normalization of tyranny robed in black. Justice must not only be done; it must be strictly lawful to preserve the integrity of the constitutional order.
