A new legal argument has emerged in the ongoing appeal by the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, with a legal practitioner, Christopher Chidera Esq., contending that the central issue before the Court of Appeal is not whether Kanu’s trial survived the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, but whether there was a valid law in force at the time of his conviction that legally authorized the judgment against him.
In a public briefing note titled “The Simple Question at the Heart of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal,” Chidera sought to clarify what he described as widespread misunderstanding surrounding the legal issues raised in the appeal.
According to him, public discussions have largely focused on whether the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 automatically invalidated ongoing proceedings or rendered existing prosecutions ineffective. However, he argued that this is not the strongest issue before the appellate court.
Rather, he said the appeal is centered on a fundamental constitutional question: whether the offences for which Kanu was convicted were defined, and their punishments prescribed, by a written law that was in force on the date judgment was delivered.
Repeal of the 2013 Terrorism Law
Chidera noted that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 was repealed by the National Assembly through the enactment of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
He stressed that the repeal itself is not disputed by any party in the matter, describing it as an established legal fact.
According to the lawyer, Kanu repeatedly drew the attention of the trial court to the repeal during proceedings held on October 23 and November 4, 5, 7 and 20, 2025.
He claimed that Kanu specifically invited the court to take judicial notice of the repeal pursuant to Section 122 of the Evidence Act, which requires courts to recognize and apply laws in force in Nigeria without requiring formal proof from the parties.
However, Chidera alleged that the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho, declined to formally take judicial notice of the repeal and instead addressed the issue on what he described as an “assuming without conceding” basis.
According to him, this approach prevented the court from conducting what he considers a necessary legal examination of the law that was actually in force at the time of conviction.
Appeal Does Not Challenge Survival of the Case
The lawyer further clarified that Kanu's appeal does not dispute the existence or legal effect of the savings clause contained in Section 98(3) of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
He acknowledged that savings clauses are designed to preserve ongoing proceedings, accrued rights, obligations and liabilities whenever legislation is repealed and replaced.
According to him, both Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act and Section 6 of the Interpretation Act operate to ensure that pending cases are not automatically extinguished merely because the law under which they commenced has been repealed.
“The appeal is not saying the case should have ended because the old law was repealed,” Chidera argued.
“Everyone agrees that the proceedings could continue. The question is whether the law relied upon for conviction remained a valid written law in force at the time judgment was delivered.”
Distinction Between a Savings Clause and a Criminal Law
A major aspect of Chidera’s argument is the distinction he draws between a savings clause and substantive criminal legislation.
According to him, while a savings clause may preserve proceedings and liabilities arising from a repealed statute, it does not itself create criminal offences or prescribe punishments.
He argued that a savings clause merely serves as a transitional mechanism to protect legal continuity following legislative changes.
“A savings clause keeps a case alive,” he stated.
“It does not define a crime. It does not prescribe punishment. It is not the law under which a court can convict a defendant.”
The lawyer maintained that this distinction lies at the heart of Kanu’s appeal and must be addressed directly by the Court of Appeal.
Constitutional Question Under Section 36(12)
Chidera anchored his argument on Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law.
According to him, the constitutional provision requires more than the mere continuation of proceedings under a savings clause.
He argued that there must be an identifiable written law in force at the time of conviction that contains the offence-creating and punishment-prescribing provisions relied upon by the court.
He contended that since the 2013 Act had already been repealed by November 20, 2025—the date Kanu was convicted—it could no longer be regarded as a “written law in force” within the meaning of Section 36(12).
Consequently, he argued that the burden falls on the prosecution and the court to identify the specific legal provisions that remained operative and authorized the conviction.
Alleged Failure to Take Judicial Notice
The lawyer also criticized what he described as the trial court’s refusal to formally take judicial notice of the repeal.
He argued that Section 122 of the Evidence Act imposes a mandatory duty on courts to recognize laws in force in Nigeria, including amendments and repeals enacted by the National Assembly.
According to him, because judicial notice does not require proof from any party, the court was obligated to acknowledge the repeal and determine its legal implications.
He maintained that by declining to expressly address the issue, the court left unresolved questions regarding the legal foundation of the conviction.
Question Before the Court of Appeal
Chidera said the Court of Appeal must now confront what he described as the most important unanswered question arising from the judgment.
According to him, the appellate court must identify the precise written law that was in force on November 20, 2025, and determine whether that law defined the offences and prescribed the punishments for which Kanu was convicted.
He argued that if such a law can clearly be identified, the conviction may withstand constitutional scrutiny.
However, he maintained that if no such law can be shown to have been in force on the date of conviction, the appellate court would be required to consider the constitutional consequences under Section 36(12) of the Constitution.
“Show Me the Law”
Summarizing his position, Chidera said the appeal can be reduced to a single question that Kanu repeatedly posed during the trial proceedings.
According to him, the question is not whether the prosecution survived the repeal of the 2013 terrorism law, nor whether the savings clause preserved the proceedings.
Instead, he said the challenge is for the court to identify the specific written law in force on November 20, 2025, that legally authorized the conviction.
“The appeal is not about whether the case survived repeal,” he concluded.
“Everyone accepts that it did. The appeal is about whether the law used to convict survived repeal. The Court of Appeal must now answer that question.”
The legal arguments are expected to form a significant part of the issues for determination as the appellate court considers Kanu’s challenge to the judgment delivered by the Federal High Court.
Post a Comment