08/09/2026
A legal practitioner, Christopher Chidera, has strongly challenged the conviction of IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu, alleging that Justice James Omotosho relied on the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, a law that had already been repealed in 2022.
Justice Omotosho convicted Kanu on seven terrorism-related counts on November 20, 2025, and sentenced him to life imprisonment after finding that the prosecution had proved its case.
But in a detailed legal commentary, Chidera argues that the conviction is fundamentally defective because a repealed law cannot remain the legal foundation for a criminal conviction.
His central question is:
“What law — the actual penal statute — defined the offence and prescribed the penalty on the day Justice Omotosho entered the conviction on 20 November 2025?”
According to Chidera, Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution requires every criminal offence to be clearly defined in written law, with its punishment prescribed by that law.
He argues that the 2013 terrorism law was already repealed, while Section 98(3) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2022, which he says was relied upon by the judge, does not create an offence or prescribe a punishment.
The lawyer therefore contends that the 2022 provision could preserve an existing criminal proceeding but could not bring a repealed penal statute back to life.
“A saved proceeding is not a resurrected statute. A preserved liability is not a living penal law,” he argued.
Chidera also questioned the court’s handling of Kanu’s objection to the repeal of the 2013 law.
He said Kanu raised the issue on November 4 and asked the court to take judicial notice of the repeal under Section 122 of the Evidence Act. According to the lawyer, the court instead referred to an earlier no-case ruling which, he alleges, had not actually determined whether the repealed law remained applicable.
Chidera further claimed that Kanu later produced the 25-page ruling and challenged the court to identify where the repeal issue had been decided, but the matter was allegedly not resolved before judgment.
He also raised concerns over Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act, alleging that it was not contained in the charge, was not argued during trial and was not put to Kanu before judgment.
According to him, the provision appeared for the first time in the final judgment, allegedly depriving Kanu of an opportunity to respond to its application.
“A conviction built on a clause that never entered the trial until judgment is not a trial on that clause,” Chidera stated.
The lawyer also criticised the judge’s use of the phrase “assuming without conceding” when dealing with the repeal issue, arguing that a court cannot simply assume a legal question that directly affects the validity of a criminal conviction.
Chidera cited the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Egigia (2024), which he said affirmed that a repealed law ceases to have legal life.
He therefore accused the judgment of treating the repealed 2013 law as though it remained “extant,” “operational,” “existing” and “in force.”
His argument is not that the allegations against Kanu should be ignored, but that the State must comply with the law and constitutional safeguards before anyone can be convicted of a crime.
“The State must follow the law to convict anyone,” he said.
Chidera is asking the Court of Appeal to examine the alleged failure to resolve the repeal issue, the alleged introduction of Section 98(3) at the judgment stage and the alleged reliance on the repealed 2013 law.
His conclusion is blunt:
“The constitutional gate was never passed. The conviction is void. It is a nullity.”
Kanu remains convicted on seven terrorism-related counts and sentenced to life imprisonment, while his legal challenge now raises a major question over which law legally supported the conviction at the time judgment was delivered.
