Nnamdi Kanu: Legal Memo Argues Terrorism Convictions Under Repealed Law Are a Nullity

• A new legal memorandum argues that terrorism convictions entered under Nigeria’s repealed 2013 law are invalid.

A detailed legal memorandum dated 5 February 2026 has raised fundamental questions over the validity of terrorism convictions entered under Nigeria’s repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, arguing that such convictions amount to a jurisdictional nullity under the current law.

Addressed to a defence appeal unit, the memorandum focuses on the interpretation of Sections 97 and 98(3) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (TPPA 2022).

It contends that Section 97, which uses mandatory language, requires all pending terrorism proceedings to continue and be concluded strictly under the 2022 Act, thereby displacing reliance on the repealed 2013 legislation.

According to the memo, Nigerian courts have consistently held that the word “shall” imposes a compulsory obligation, while “may” is merely permissive. On this basis, the document argues that Section 97 must prevail over Section 98(3), which only preserves existing proceedings from collapse but does not authorise convictions or sentencing under a repealed statute.

The memorandum outlines that although the appellant was initially charged in 2021 under the 2013 Act, that law was repealed in May 2022. Following appellate interventions, the trial was restarted afresh in March 2025 before a new judge. Despite this, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in November 2025 under the repealed legal framework.

The legal team argues that this approach violates settled principles of statutory interpretation, as well as Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits conviction for offences not defined by a law in force at the time of conviction.

The memo stresses that penal statutes must be strictly construed in favour of the accused and that any ambiguity must be resolved against the State.

DON’T MISS: IPOB Reveals How Nnamdi Kanu’s Conviction Has Led to Wider Insecurity

Citing multiple Supreme Court and appellate authorities, the memorandum maintains that repealed penal laws cannot be revived by implication or judicial discretion.

It concludes that any conviction or sentence imposed under the defunct Act is not a mere procedural error but a fundamental defect that robs the court of jurisdiction.

The document forms part of broader appellate arguments seeking to overturn terrorism-related convictions on constitutional and statutory grounds.