The Doctrine of Appellate Finality: Resolving The Legal Illiteracy That Pervade Nigeria 

 

The Doctrine of Appellate Finality: Resolving The Legal Illiteracy That Pervade Nigeria

The Court of Appeal is, by constitutional design, the final arbiter in criminal matters that do not raise constitutional questions of law going to the Supreme Court, unless an appeal lies as of right under Section 233(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

In Nnamdi Kanu’s case, the Court of Appeal did not merely entertain an interlocutory question — it delivered a final appellate judgment on an issue that went to the jurisdictional competence of the trial court itself, flowing directly from the illegality of the extraordinary rendition.

Once the appellate court found that the entire process leading to the arraignment was void ab initio, it became functus officio. The ruling discharged Kanu, and that discharge stood as a final appellate discharge, not a procedural one pending further inquiry.

Authorities:

Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 — where jurisdiction, once lacking, renders all proceedings nullity.
Abacha v. State (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 437 — the Supreme Court affirmed that where jurisdiction is lacking, proceedings collapse entirely.
Oladipo v. State (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 54 — appellate pronouncements on jurisdiction are final and extinguish trial court competence.
Jurisdictional Nullity Is Never Interlocutory

To call a jurisdictional nullity “interlocutory” is to misread the word “nullity.”
A nullity is not a “pause” — it’s a collapse. Once a court acts without jurisdiction, it cannot birth valid interlocutory orders.

Latin maxim: Ex nihilo nihil fit — “Nothing comes out of nothing.”

Thus, when the Court of Appeal declared the rendition unlawful and the entire trial process void, the discharge was not on merit, but it was final in law because it extinguished the jurisdictional foundation itself.

The Supreme Court’s “Setting Aside” and Its Implication

The Supreme Court, by revisiting that discharge, stepped into the forbidden zone of double jeopardy under Section 36(9) of the Constitution and Article 7(1) of the African Charter.

If the Court of Appeal’s ruling was an appellate discharge based on a jurisdictional nullity, which it was, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to revive what had died.
That’s why jurists like Agim, JSC in SC/CR/1364/2022 used the word “illegal abduction” — which is not merely procedural but substantive and constitutional in its contamination of the trial.

Why Nigerians Misunderstand

Most public commentators and even journalists collapse these doctrines because they confuse procedural appealability with jurisdictional finality.
They assume that because a higher court can “review” a decision, that automatically means the matter was interlocutory.
But once an appellate court — not a trial court — declares a proceeding void for want of jurisdiction, that appellate pronouncement is final, not preliminary.

To borrow an ancient phrase — “when the town crier starts echoing rumours, the truth goes to sleep.”
The truth here is simple:

The Court of Appeal judgment was final in its jurisdictional effect.
The Supreme Court’s interference offends both the constitutional protection against double jeopardy and the doctrine of appellate finality.
And journalists who fail to interrogate such judicial contradictions become complicit in public confusion.
Issued by:

Barrister Christopher Chidera

Human Rights Lawyer & Public Commentator

Steve Oko, Publisher/C.E.O, WaWa News Global. For more information on advert placement and news coverage, contact us on: 08038725600, or via email stevemanofgod2000@yahoo.com; wawanewsglobal@gmail.com Always read WaWa News Global - Your most dependable online news platform for the latest breaking news in Nigeria.

About The Author