Timeframe: June 2021 – June 2025
Location: Milimani Law Courts, Nairobi
Key Actors: Justice Anthony Mrima Mwita, Petitioners’
counsel George Wajackoyah, Kenya’s Attorney General, Nigerian High
Commission
Epigraph:
“The abduction, detention, torture, and removal of the petitioner
from Kenya were illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, and violated his
rights.”
— Justice Mwita, Constitutional Petition E404 of 2021 [1].
The Camera Lens
Four years after the midnight flight, a packed courtroom in Nairobi finally addressed the question Kenya’s leadership had dodged: was the rendition legal? Cameras captured Justice Mwita reading a 94-page judgment that dissected every government denial. Outside, activists unfurled banners reading “Justice Travels.” Inside, the judge recited the facts: no arrest warrant, no extradition proceedings, no court order authorizing removal. Kenya’s complicity was now etched into law.
The court held that Kenyan agents violated Articles 29, 39, and 51 of the Kenyan Constitution by abducting Kanu without due process [1]. Justice Mwita rejected the State’s claim that he “sneaked out voluntarily,” noting that immigration records confirmed lawful entry on a British passport and no exit stamp. The ruling castigated the authorities for “aiding and facilitating an extra-legal rendition.”
The judgment awarded KES 10 million in damages, a symbolic but unprecedented acknowledgement that Kenya’s actions amounted to kidnapping. The court also ordered the State to provide detailed reports on officers involved, effectively naming and shaming the collaboration. For IPOB lawyers, the ruling became Exhibit A in international briefs: if the country where the arrest occurred declares it illegal, how can Nigeria justify continuing the trial that followed?
For investigators, Justice Mwita’s ruling is more than a local victory; it is the documentary exhibit every international forum now demands. It confirms the core allegation—extraordinary rendition—using the State’s own records. Every time the Federal Government claims “due process,” advocates can point to paragraph 112 of the judgment and ask: if the capture was illegal at the point of origin, what exactly is being prosecuted? This note has become the most-circulated page in Kanu’s legal dossiers before the African Commission, the UN Working Group, and foreign parliaments.
The Kenyan High Court judgment transformed whispers into judicial fact. No longer could officials claim ignorance or “interception.” A sovereign court declared the rendition a crime. The ruling now haunts every Nigerian prosecutor who cites the capture as lawful.