The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPoB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a fresh suit against the Federal Government, seeking permanent termination of his continued trial.

He also adduced reasons the trial should not be allowed to continue after being discharged by the Court of Appeal, describing it as a fragrant violation of the rule of law.

In the suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, a copy of which was made available to Vanguard through the family, Kanu highlighted four defects of his continued trial.

“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”, the suit read.

“Each of these defects is independently fatal; cumulatively, they render the entire trial incompetent and void”, the suit added.

Kanu argued that the Federal Government remains in flagrant contempt of a subsisting appellate judgment which had in the past, discharged him.

“By the Doctrine of Appellate Finality, that order terminated the trial absolutely”, he submitted.

“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 continuing in disobedience — ex turpi causa non oritur actio.”

Kanu also argued that he had been denied fair hearing, in violation of Section 36(6)(b)&(c) of the 1999 Constitution and Article 7(1)(c) of the African Charter.

He said that “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”, the suit read.

On the defect of reliance on a forged medical report, Kanu said the Court’s ruling on his fitness to stand trial “rests upon a forged medical report dated 23 September 2025”.

He noted that the order directing the NMA to examine him was made on 26 September 2025, while the purported report was dated issued three days earlier.

Kanu insisted that “no such examination ever occurred”, adding that “reliance on that fraudulent document vitiates the ruling”.

Citing Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, Kanu said “where any condition precedent to jurisdiction is absent, the entire proceedings are a nullity.”

He, therefore, urged the court”to declare these proceedings void and to terminate the trial forthwith in obedience to the rule of law.” (Vanguard)