A new legal briefing has added another dimension to the ongoing appeal filed by detained IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, with a lawyer, Onyedikachi Ifedi, arguing that Justice James Omotosho misapplied provisions of Nigeria’s terrorism laws during Kanu’s trial and conviction.
In a public briefing note titled “A Guide to Omotosho’s Misapplication & Misunderstanding of the Law: Why the ‘Show Me The Law’ Demand Ended the Case,” Ifedi contended that the central issue before the Court of Appeal is whether Kanu’s trial was lawfully concluded under the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act (TPPA) 2022 after the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act (TPAA) 2013.
Using the analogy of a traveller moving from an old road to a new one through a bridge, the lawyer argued that the National Assembly intended all pending terrorism-related proceedings to continue under the provisions of the TPPA 2022 following the repeal of the earlier legislation.
According to him, Section 98(3) of the TPPA 2022 served as a savings clause preserving pending cases, while Section 97 directed that such matters be “continued and concluded” under the new law.
Ifedi alleged that although Justice Omotosho acknowledged the savings provision and the need for a smooth transition, the trial court failed to complete what he described as the mandatory transition to the new legal framework.
He argued that the court continued to rely on provisions of the repealed 2013 law despite the enactment of the 2022 legislation, a move he claimed was inconsistent with the intentions of lawmakers.
“The question is whether the journey was completed on the new road as required by law or whether there was an unlawful return to the repealed statute,” the lawyer stated.
The briefing further maintained that Kanu repeatedly challenged the court to identify the specific provisions of the TPPA 2022 under which he was convicted and sentenced, a demand summarised by the phrase “Show Me The Law.”
According to Ifedi, the issue goes beyond whether the case itself survived the repeal of the old law, noting that all parties agree that the savings clause preserved pending proceedings. Rather, he argued that the key constitutional question is whether the legal provisions used to sustain the conviction remained valid and operative after the repeal.
Citing Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which requires that criminal offences and penalties be grounded in a written law in force at the relevant time, the lawyer contended that the Court of Appeal must determine whether the conviction can be linked to specific provisions of the TPPA 2022.
He maintained that if no such provisions can be clearly identified, the conviction would lack constitutional foundation and should be set aside.
The briefing concludes that the appeal is ultimately centred on whether the conviction was secured under a valid and operative law, insisting that the Court of Appeal must provide a definitive answer to the question repeatedly posed by Kanu’s legal team: “Show Me The Law.”
The Court of Appeal is expected to consider the arguments raised in the appeal as legal debates surrounding the interpretation and application of Nigeria’s terrorism laws continue.
Emmanuel Ukaoha is a web developer, Blogger, and SEO expert from Nigeria. He holds a BSc in Computer Science from Renaissance University, Enugu State, with Second Class Honors.