IN THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT OF NIGERIA
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
CHARGE NO: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015
BETWEEN:
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ............... Complainant/Respondent
AND
MAZI NNAMDI KANU .............. Defendant/Applicant
BRIEF OF ORAL ARGUMENT ON VITIATING DEFECTS
May it please this Honourable Court,
The Defendant respectfully submits, ex facie curiae, that there are four jurisdiction-vitiating defects manifest on the face of the record, which nullify these proceedings ab initio. Each of these defects is independently fatal; cumulatively, they render the entire trial incompetent and void.
1. CONTEMPT OF COURT AND THE DOCTRINE OF APPELLATE FINALITY
The Federal Government remains in flagrant contempt of a subsisting appellate judgment which discharged the Defendant. By the Doctrine of Appellate Finality, that order terminated the trial absolutely.
Until it was set aside by the Supreme Court (after fourteen months), it remained binding in praesenti and enforceable ex debito justitiae.
See Governor of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.18) 621; Rossek v. ACB Ltd (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt.312) 382.
A contemnor cannot invoke the equitable discretion of a lower court while in continuing disobedience — ex turpi causa non oritur actio.
2. FAILURE TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF STATUTORY REPEAL (S.122 EVIDENCE ACT)
By Section 122(1) of the Evidence Act 2011, the Court must take judicial notice of all Acts and repeals suo motu.
In NNPC v. Fawehinmi (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt.559) 598 (CA), applied and affirmed in A.G. Lagos State v. Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.111) 552 (SC) and Uwaifo v. A.G. Bendel State (1982) 7 SC 124, it was held that proceedings conducted in ignorance of a statutory repeal are void ab initio.
Judicia debent esse perspicua — the Court must act by what the law is, not what it was.
Hence, ex facie legis, this trial is null.
3. DENIAL OF FAIR HEARING AND JUDICIAL PERVERSITY
The Defendant has been denied fair hearing under Section 36(6)(b)&(c) of the 1999 Constitution and Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter.
After four years in solitary detention, he was permitted only three hours of monitored consultation with counsel in the courtroom on the eve of entering his defence in a capital case.
That is not fair hearing — it is judicial perversity.
See Olatunji v. FRN (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt.827) 436, Ezeugo v. Ohanyere (1978) 6–7 SC 171, and A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt.1041) 1.
A trial so conducted is per incuriam et contra constitutionem.
4. RELIANCE ON A FORGED MEDICAL REPORT
This Court’s ruling on the Defendant’s fitness to stand trial rests upon a forged medical report dated 23 September 2025, though the order directing the NMA to examine him was made on 26 September 2025.
Res ipsa loquitur. No such examination ever occurred.
Reliance on that fraudulent document vitiates the ruling.
See Macfoy v. UAC (1962) AC 152; Alao v. ACB Ltd (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt.672) 264 — fraus omnia corrumpit.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
These four defects — contempt of appellate authority, failure to take judicial notice of repeal, denial of fair hearing, and reliance on forgery — are all ex facie recordi and strike at the root of jurisdiction.
By Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, where any condition precedent to jurisdiction is absent, the entire proceedings are a nullity.
We therefore urge this Honourable Court, ex debito justitiae, to declare these proceedings void and to terminate the trial forthwith in obedience to the rule of law.
DATED THIS …… DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
MAZI NNAMDI KANU
Defendant/Applicant
c/o DSS CUSTODY, HEADQUARTERS 1 MAITAMA AVENUE, ABUJA, NIGERIA
0 Comments