ABUJA — A fresh legal battle has erupted over the conviction and life imprisonment of Nnamdi Kanu, as one of his lawyers, Barrister Christopher Chidera, has accused the Federal High Court of relying on a repealed terrorism law to secure the judgment against the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
In a detailed public briefing titled “The Simple Question At The Heart Of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal,” Chidera argued that the core issue before the Court of Appeal is not whether Kanu’s criminal trial survived the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, but whether the law under which he was ultimately convicted remained legally in force when judgment was delivered.
According to the lawyer, the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 was formally repealed and replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, a development he described as undisputed and central to the appeal.
Chidera alleged that throughout proceedings in late 2025, Kanu repeatedly urged trial judge Justice James Omotosho to take judicial notice of the repeal pursuant to Section 122 of the Evidence Act. He claimed the court declined to directly address the issue and instead proceeded on what he described as an “assuming without conceding” basis.
According to him, this approach prevented the court from undertaking what he called the crucial legal exercise of determining which written law was actually in force at the time of conviction, as required by Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution.
While acknowledging that Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act contains a savings clause preserving ongoing proceedings and liabilities arising before the repeal of previous legislation, Chidera argued that such provisions merely allow existing cases to continue and cannot serve as the substantive legal basis for a criminal conviction.
“A savings clause keeps a case alive,” he maintained. “It does not define an offence, prescribe a punishment, or become the law under which a person can be convicted.”
The lawyer further contended that Section 36(12) of the Constitution requires every criminal conviction to be founded on a written law that both defines the offence and prescribes the punishment in force at the relevant time.
His argument centres on the date judgment was delivered — November 20, 2025.
“A repealed law is not a written law in force on the day of conviction,” Chidera asserted, insisting that preserving a criminal proceeding is legally distinct from preserving a repealed statute as an operative penal law.
He also accused the trial court of failing to discharge its statutory duty to take judicial notice of laws in force in Nigeria, including the repeal of legislation.
Under Section 122 of the Evidence Act, courts are required to recognize and apply extant laws without requiring parties to prove their existence.
According to Chidera, the unresolved question now before the appellate court is straightforward but constitutionally significant: what specific law in force on November 20, 2025, defined the offences for which Kanu was convicted and prescribed the penalties imposed on him?
He argued that although the trial court relied heavily on savings provisions, it failed to clearly identify the offence-creating sections of the 2022 terrorism law that authorized the conviction and sentence.
The lawyer maintained that the appeal is not about whether the criminal proceedings survived the repeal of the earlier legislation, but whether the legal foundation of the conviction itself survived.
“The case may have continued,” he said. “But the real question remains whether the law used to convict remained alive after repeal. That question was repeatedly raised. It was never answered.”
With the matter now before the Court of Appeal, the case is expected to test the constitutional limits of repealed criminal statutes, savings provisions, and the requirement that every conviction must rest upon a valid written law in force at the time judgment is delivered.
At the heart of the appeal, Chidera said, lies a single challenge directed at the courts: “Show us the law.”