A legal practitioner, Christopher Chidera Esq., has raised fresh arguments in support of the appeal filed by detained separatist leader, Nnamdi Kanu, insisting that a fundamental constitutional question remains unanswered regarding the law under which he was convicted.
In a public briefing note titled “The Simple Question at the Heart of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal,” Chidera argued that the central issue before the Court of Appeal is not whether Kanu’s case survived the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 (TPAA 2013), but whether the law used to secure his conviction remained legally valid at the time judgment was delivered.
According to the lawyer, the TPAA 2013 was repealed by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 (TPPA 2022), a fact he said is not in dispute.
He claimed that during proceedings on October 23 and November 4, 5, 7, and 20, 2025, Kanu repeatedly invited trial judge, Justice James Omotosho, to formally take judicial notice of the repeal pursuant to Section 122 of the Evidence Act.
However, Chidera alleged that the court declined to do so and instead proceeded on what he described as an “assuming without conceding” basis.
While acknowledging that Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act contains a savings clause that preserved ongoing cases, rights, and liabilities after the repeal of the earlier law, the lawyer maintained that such a provision cannot itself serve as the basis for a criminal conviction.
He argued that a savings clause merely allows proceedings to continue and does not define offences or prescribe punishments.
Citing Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, Chidera stressed that no person can be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and punishment are contained in a written law that was in force at the time of conviction.
According to him, the key constitutional question is whether there was a valid written law in force on November 20, 2025, that specifically defined the offences and prescribed the punishments for which Kanu was convicted.
“The case surviving repeal is not the issue,” he stated. “The issue is whether the law used for the conviction survived repeal.”
The lawyer further contended that the trial court had a legal obligation to identify the specific law in force that authorized the conviction, adding that this question remained unresolved in the judgment.
He therefore urged the Court of Appeal to determine whether a valid written law existed on the date of conviction that met the constitutional requirements under Section 36(12).
“If such a law can be identified, the Court can say so. If it cannot be identified, then the constitutional implications must be addressed,” he argued.
The appeal is expected to draw significant legal and public attention as the appellate court considers the constitutional and statutory issues raised regarding Kanu’s conviction.
Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is currently challenging aspects of the judgment delivered against him, with the Court of Appeal expected to examine several legal questions arising from the case.
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.