A lawyer, Onyedikachi Ifedi, questions the Supreme Court’s decision to revive charges that the Court of Appeal had quashed in the trial of IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu. The Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2022 ruling discharged and acquitted Kanu, striking out multiple counts on the basis that they disclosed no offence, while leaving some counts intact.

Ifedi challenges the Supreme Court’s December 15, 2023 judgment that sets aside the Court of Appeal’s decision and remits the case to the Federal High Court for continuation. He asks what specific law empowered the apex court to “resurrect” counts the Court of Appeal had nullified, and what law authorised the Supreme Court to substitute the statutory basis of one of the remaining charges. He argues that appellate jurisdiction does not automatically confer power to revive quashed criminal counts or rewrite the legal foundation of an accusation.

He also links the procedural restart—after Justice Binta Nyako’s recusal and a fresh plea before another judge—to the broader legal issue, saying a change of judge cannot resolve the status of previously quashed charges. The lawyer further points to alleged inconsistency with an earlier Supreme Court principle that a retrial cannot proceed when the original proceeding lacked legal authority to commence.