Nnamdi Kanu’s continued detention has been linked to critical legal missteps made by his former legal team, according to UK-based legal analyst, Njoku Jude Njoku. In a press statement made available to journalists in Abuja, Njoku argued that the legal team committed fundamental errors, including allowing the Federal Government to appeal the Court of Appeal’s ruling that discharged Kanu, instead of enforcing the decision. He pointed out that the government used Order 6 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules a civil procedure rule to appeal a criminal discharge delivered on October 13, 2022, a move he described as a “colossal legal blunder.” “That rule is meant for civil appeals, not criminal ones. It should never have applied. By going along with this, [Kanu’s lead counsel] Mike Ozekhome effectively allowed a dead case to be re-opened,” Njoku stated. He criticized the Supreme Court for entertaining the appeal despite the Court of Appeal’s earlier ruling, which discharged Kanu on the basis that his extradition from Kenya violated both Nigerian and international laws, thereby robbing the Nigerian courts of jurisdiction. Njoku also dismissed claims by former Attorney-General Abubakar Malami that Kanu was not truly “free” because a discharge isn’t the same as an acquittal. “Section 396(7) of the ACJA, which Malami often cited, has nothing to do with discharge or acquittal. It only states that judges elevated to higher courts can complete cases they had already begun,” he explained. He further clarified that: “Discharge due to lack of jurisdiction as in Kanu’s case equals acquittal. It’s final. The Supreme Court has confirmed this in FRN v. Osahon (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 973) 361, where it was held that any proceedings without jurisdiction are null and void.” Njoku said that the government’s attempt to re-try Kanu under the Terrorism Prevention Act (TPA) 2013, which was repealed in May 2022 and replaced by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, is legally flawed. “Section 108(2) of the new Act allows continuation of old cases, but only if they were still active when the new law took effect. Kanu’s case had already been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. You can’t revive a dead case,” he said. He cited Section 6(1)(c) of the Interpretation Act 1964, which reinforces that repealed laws cannot revive proceedings already terminated. Njoku expressed sympathy for Kanu’s current legal team, saying they inherited a weakened position. “They came in late and have very little room to reverse the damage done. Their only arguments are: The Court of Appeal ruling on lack of jurisdiction equates to an acquittal, Kanu cannot be tried under a repealed law,” he said. He urged the public to refrain from blaming the current defence team and instead focus on the goal: securing Kanu’s freedom. “The mistakes were made in 2022. Blaming those now trying to fix things is unfair. The real issues are: Abuse of civil rules in criminal cases, Use of repealed laws to prosecute political prisoners, Silence of foreign governments, The dangerous precedent of allowing executive overreach on constitutional rights.” Njoku expressed optimism, citing the inclusion of legal luminary Kanu Agabi (SAN) in the defence team and Justice Omotosho presiding over the case. “We now have a real chance to restore the meaning of constitutional rights and to free a man who has already been discharged. Let’s not waste it,” he concluded.