In a landmark ruling, South Africa’s Constitutional Court has paved the way for Henry Okah, the imprisoned leader of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), to submit fresh appeals challenging his conviction and imprisonment. The decision, issued on February 18, 2025, follows mounting legal and political controversy surrounding Okah’s trial and subsequent sentencing.
Okah, who was sentenced to 24 years in a South African prison for his alleged role in the October 1, 2010, car bombing in Abuja, Nigeria, has consistently denied the charges, claiming his prosecution was politically motivated. The attack, which targeted Nigeria’s Independence Day celebrations, resulted in multiple casualties. MEND, a militant group advocating for the rights of the oil-rich but impoverished Niger Delta, claimed responsibility for the bombing.
The latest legal twist comes in the wake of a February 12 ruling by South Africa’s Judicial Conduct Committee, which authorized a judicial inquiry into Okah’s claims of sabotage against former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo. According to Okah’s legal team, his case was deliberately undermined through alleged tampering with court documents—an accusation that has rocked South Africa’s judiciary.
Court records reveal that Okah had previously sought to overturn court decisions in cases CCT 239/23 and CCT 273/23, arguing that the registrar’s office had unlawfully altered the contents of his primary applications, effectively sabotaging his chances of a fair hearing. However, a panel of justices, including Chief Justice Maya and Justices Kollapen, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Rogers, Theron, and Tshiqi, dismissed his requests to rescind prior rulings, stating that granting them would imply accepting his allegations against Zondo as fact without due process.
Despite this, the Constitutional Court’s latest order allows Okah to challenge anew the legality of his detention, marking a crucial turning point in his prolonged battle for justice.
At the heart of Okah’s appeal is the argument that his arrest and prosecution violated South Africa’s own legal framework. His legal team contends that the 2018 Constitutional Court ruling that upheld his conviction is null and void because the South African state failed to comply with Section 15 of its anti-terrorism law, which governs extraterritorial jurisdiction.
According to this provision, South African courts can only prosecute foreign-based offenses under specific conditions—conditions Okah argues were never met in his case. If this claim holds, it could upend the entire legal foundation of his conviction and raise serious questions about the extent of South Africa’s jurisdiction in transnational terrorism cases.
Okah’s imprisonment has long been entangled in the broader struggle between Nigeria’s oil-producing communities and both the Nigerian government and multinational oil corporations. As a prominent figure in MEND, Okah was a vocal critic of the Nigerian government’s exploitation of the Niger Delta’s resources, often clashing with authorities over the region’s environmental degradation and economic marginalization.
His supporters argue that his conviction was a politically motivated attempt to silence one of the most influential voices advocating for Niger Delta self-determination. They also highlight the role of international oil interests in shaping the Nigerian government’s stance on militant groups like MEND.
With the Constitutional Court’s new ruling, Okah now has the opportunity to mount a fresh legal challenge, which could potentially lead to a review of his conviction—or even his release. Legal analysts suggest that if Okah successfully proves that South Africa lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him, his case could set a precedent for other transnational legal battles involving political dissidents and militant leaders.
For now, the world watches as South Africa’s judiciary navigates the complexities of this high-stakes case—one that could reshape both legal and political landscapes in Nigeria and beyond.
PIONEER NEWS 