DEATH PENALTY FOR NNAMDI KANU: LEGAL LOOPHOLES, SUPREME COURT PRECEDENTS, AND THE RISK TO SOUTHEAST PEACE.
The Federal Government’s move to seek the death penalty for Nnamdi Kanu after his life sentence is less straightforward than it looks on paper.
Three legal faultlines make this a high-risk case.
First ,you can’t prosecute with a dead law.
Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 rely on the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013.
That law was repealed on 12 May 2022 by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
Nigerian law is clear: nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege - no crime, no punishment without a law in force.
In FRN v. Ifegwu (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 113, the Supreme Court voided charges based on non-existent offences.
The defence argues the trial court violated Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011 by failing to take judicial notice of the repeal.
If that holds, the entire charge on those counts collapses as a nullity, no matter how serious the allegations.
Secondly , the double jeopardy problem.
The Court of Appeal discharged Kanu in October 2022, ruling his rendition from Kenya illegal.
The Supreme Court overturned that in December 2023 and sent the case back for trial.
Kanu’s team says this breaches Section 36(9) of the Constitution: no one shall be tried again for an offence they’ve been acquitted of.
They lean on Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt 660) 228, where a 7-man Supreme Court panel held that constitutional protections override inconsistent laws and procedures.
The FG’s counter is that the discharge wasn’t on merit, so the bar against retrial doesn’t apply.
The tension is real, and it’s why the defence keeps calling the Dec 2023 judgment “per incuriam.”
Thirdly, jurisdiction and the rendition question.
Most of the alleged acts happened in Kenya.
Under Section 76(1)(d)(iii) TPPA 2022, Nigeria needs Kenyan validation that the acts are criminal there before assuming jurisdiction. That didn’t happen.
Add the Kenyan High Court’s ruling that the abduction was unlawful, and you have a specialty/extradition problem: you can’t try someone for offences outside the extradition process.
This Kanu's case matters so much for the Southeast because the security picture currently is contradictory.
History shows escalation follows perceived injustice without a political off-ramp.
A death sentence, even if legally defensible, risks being read as collective punishment and could deepen radicalization among youth who already distrust Abuja.
Courts can decide the law, but they can’t fix the politics behind the agitation.
Nigeria’s unity is too porous for a purely prosecutorial approach.
The smart move is a parallel political solution: dialogue with Southeast leaders, traditional rulers, and non-violent stakeholders on restructuring, and devolution.
You can’t litigate your way out of a legitimacy deficit.
Without that political track, the state risks winning the judgment and losing peace.
Larry Edemanya.
0 Comments