SHOW ME THE LAW: Omotosho’s Illegal U-Turn on the Repealed Road That Doomed the Conviction

• A fresh legal briefing by lawyer Onyedikachi Ifedi argues that Justice James Omotosho’s conviction of Nnamdi Kanu was built on a repealed terrorism law, contrary to the provisions of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.

A constitutional and legal battle over the conviction of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has taken a dramatic turn following the release of a public legal briefing alleging that the trial court relied on a repealed law to secure the conviction.

In a detailed document titled “A Guide to Omotosho’s Misapplication & Misunderstanding of the Law: Why the ‘Show Me the Law’ Demand Ended the Case,” lawyer Onyedikachi Ifedi argues that Justice James Omotosho failed to comply with clear provisions of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act (TPPA) 2022 when handling Kanu’s terrorism-related charges.

The briefing employs a vivid analogy of a traveller navigating between an old road, a bridge, and a new road to explain what it describes as a fundamental legal error that allegedly undermines the conviction.

The Old Road, the Bridge, and the New Road

According to Ifedi, the repealed Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 represented the “old road,” while the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 became the “new road” after the National Assembly repealed the earlier legislation.

The “bridge,” he explains, is Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act, commonly referred to as the savings clause, which preserved ongoing proceedings initiated under the old law.

However, the lawyer argues that while Section 98(3) allowed pending cases to continue, Section 97 of the new Act expressly required such proceedings to be “continued and concluded under this Act” — meaning under the provisions of the TPPA 2022.

According to the briefing, the transition was mandatory and one-directional.

“The traffic flows only one way. No return to the repealed old road is permitted,” the document states.

Allegation of an Illegal Legal U-Turn

The core argument advanced in the briefing is that Justice Omotosho acknowledged the savings clause and relied on it to keep the proceedings alive but allegedly failed to complete the transition required by law.

The document claims that instead of moving fully into the framework of the 2022 Act, the court continued relying on the repealed 2013 legislation when determining criminal liability and imposing punishment.

Ifedi describes this as an “illegal U-turn” that directly contradicted the instructions contained in Section 97.

According to him, Kanu repeatedly challenged the court to identify the specific provisions of the TPPA 2022 that defined the offences and prescribed the penalties upon which his conviction was based.

That challenge was encapsulated in a phrase that has now become central to the appeal:

“Show me the law.”

Constitutional Question Before the Court of Appeal

The briefing argues that the controversy is no longer about whether the case survived the repeal of the 2013 law.

Instead, it says the real issue is whether the conviction itself was grounded on a valid law that was in force when judgment was delivered.

Drawing attention to Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, the document notes that no person can be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence and its punishment are prescribed in a written law.

According to Ifedi, the Constitution requires courts to identify the precise law in force at the time a conviction is entered.

He argues that a repealed statute cannot satisfy that constitutional requirement.

“A repealed law is not a written law in force,” the briefing states.

The lawyer further contends that while the savings clause kept the proceedings alive, it did not revive the repealed criminal provisions or transform them into operative law capable of sustaining a conviction.

Judicial Notice and the Repeal Debate

The briefing also raises concerns about the trial court’s treatment of the repeal issue.

It claims that the repeal of the 2013 Act was repeatedly brought to the court’s attention and that the court was invited to take judicial notice of the new legislation.

Under the Evidence Act, courts are generally expected to take judicial notice of written laws without requiring formal proof.

Despite this, the document argues that the trial court did not engage with the repeal issue in the manner sought by the defence and proceeded to judgment without identifying the relevant provisions of the TPPA 2022.

According to the lawyer, this omission created a constitutional defect that strikes at the foundation of the conviction itself.

“Show Me the Law”

The legal briefing repeatedly returns to what it describes as a simple but unanswered question.

It challenges the court to identify the exact provisions of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 that defined the offences for which Kanu was convicted and prescribed the punishments imposed.

The document insists that references to the savings clause alone are insufficient and argues that legal theories about when the alleged offences were committed do not answer the constitutional requirement.

Instead, it says the law demands identification of the specific written law that was in force at the time judgment was delivered.

DON’T MISS: Lawyer Faults Eculaw Analysis, Says Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal Brief Was Fundamentally Misread

Appeal Expected to Test Key Constitutional Principles

With the matter now before the Court of Appeal, the briefing argues that the appellate court will have to determine whether the conviction complied with both the TPPA 2022 and Section 36(12) of the Constitution.

If the court finds that no valid provision of the 2022 Act supported the offences and penalties applied in the case, the document contends that the conviction cannot stand.

“The appeal is not about whether the case survived the repeal. Everyone agrees that the savings clause kept it alive,” the briefing concludes.

“The appeal is about whether the law used to convict survived the repeal and whether the journey was lawfully completed on the new road as Parliament expressly commanded.”

At the centre of the legal dispute remains the question that Kanu’s supporters say has never been answered:

“Show me the law.”