A legal practitioner, Christopher Chidera Esq., has argued that the central issue in the appeal filed by the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, is whether there was a valid written law in force at the time of his conviction that defined the offences and prescribed the punishments imposed by the court.
In a public briefing note titled “The Simple Question at the Heart of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal,” Chidera maintained that the appeal is not primarily about whether the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 automatically terminated the case against Kanu.
According to him, all parties appear to agree that the proceedings survived the repeal due to the operation of a savings clause contained in the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
The lawyer explained that the 2013 terrorism law was repealed and replaced by the 2022 legislation, a fact he said is not in dispute. He further alleged that during proceedings held on October 23 and November 4, 5, 7, and 20, 2025, Kanu repeatedly invited the trial court to take judicial notice of the repeal under Section 122 of the Evidence Act.
Chidera claimed that Justice James Omotosho declined to formally take judicial notice of the repeal and instead proceeded on what he described as an “assuming without conceding” basis.
He argued that while the savings clause in the 2022 Act preserved ongoing proceedings, rights, liabilities, and obligations arising from the repealed law, it did not itself define criminal offences or prescribe punishments.
“The case could continue, but the key constitutional question remains whether there was a written law in force on November 20, 2025, that defined the offences and prescribed the punishments for which Nnamdi Kanu was convicted,” he stated.
Relying on Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, Chidera contended that a person can only be convicted for an offence defined in a written law that is in force at the time of conviction. He further argued that a repealed law cannot be regarded as a written law in force on the date judgment was delivered.
The lawyer maintained that the trial court had a legal obligation to identify the specific law in force at the time of conviction and to establish that it contained the relevant offence-creating and punishment-prescribing provisions.
According to him, the judgment relied on the savings clause but did not expressly point to the sections of the 2022 terrorism law that allegedly defined the offences and prescribed the punishments imposed on Kanu.
He therefore urged the Court of Appeal to determine whether a valid written law in force on November 20, 2025, authorized the conviction.
Chidera concluded that the appeal raises a straightforward but significant constitutional question: whether the law used to convict Kanu survived the repeal of the earlier terrorism legislation.
He insisted that the appellate court must now answer what he described as the unresolved question at the heart of the case: “What written law in force on November 20, 2025, authorized the conviction?”
Post a Comment