he Initiative Against Human Rights Abuse and Torture (INAHURAT) has called for the immediate and unconditional release of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu

The Initiative Against Human Rights Abuse and Torture (INAHURAT) has called for the immediate and unconditional release of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu

The Initiative Against Human Rights Abuse and Torture (INAHURAT) has called for the immediate and unconditional release of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, describing his ongoing trial as “an unlawful persecution, not a prosecution.”

In a statement signed by its National Coordinator, Comrade Gerald Katchy, on Monday, the group argued that the Supreme Court’s December 2023 decision to order a retrial was delivered without jurisdiction because the charges against Kanu had been legally extinguished 14 months earlier by the Court of Appeal.

“The trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is a travesty. The Supreme Court attempted to revive a case that was already dead in law. This is not only a jurisdictional catastrophe but also a deliberate act of persecution,” Katchy said.

INAHURAT recalled that on October 13, 2022, the Court of Appeal discharged and acquitted Kanu on the grounds that his extraordinary rendition from Kenya was unlawful and violated his fundamental rights.

“From that moment, there was no criminal charge pending against Nnamdi Kanu in any Nigerian court. He was, in the eyes of the law, an innocent man,” the group stressed, citing the precedent in Salu v. Egeibon (1994) which bars retrial after an acquittal.

Although the government secured a stay of execution on Kanu’s release, the group explained that the stay did not affect the substantive acquittal.

For 14 months, from October 2022 to December 2023, the case was a legal ghost — a shell without substance. The Supreme Court therefore ruled on a nullity,” the statement read.

INAHURAT further argued that retrying Kanu would violate Section 36(9) of the Constitution, which prohibits trying a person twice for the same offence.

“The Court of Appeal is a court of competent jurisdiction. Its acquittal triggered the constitutional shield of double jeopardy. Any attempt at retrial is a brazen violation of the supreme law of the land,” Katchy maintained.

The group also faulted the reliance on the repealed Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013.