Barrister Christopher Chidera Questions Legal Basis of Nnamdi Kanu’s Conviction, Calls for Immediate Appeal Hearing

• Barrister Christopher Chidera, a member of the Global Legal Consortium to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has backed the Okwu-Kanu Family’s demand for the immediate listing…

Barrister Christopher Chidera, a member of the Global Legal Consortium to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has backed the Okwu-Kanu Family’s demand for the immediate listing and determination of Kanu’s pending matters before the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

Chidera, in a statement titled “Show Him the Law: Nigeria Cannot Hide Behind Public Legal Illiteracy,” questioned why the Federal Government had not appeared to defend Kanu’s conviction if it was confident that the judgment was legally sound.

He argued that Kanu’s repeated request for his cases to be heard should be met with a substantive response from the government in court.

“The question is becoming embarrassingly simple: Why is the Federal Government running from the courtroom?” Chidera asked.

According to the lawyer, the public should not assume that the constitutional questions surrounding Kanu’s conviction have been resolved merely because a court pronounced him convicted and a savings clause was subsequently relied upon.

Lawyer Raises Section 36(12) Question

Chidera pointed to Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its punishment are prescribed by a written law.

He said the central question before the courts should therefore be which extant written law governed the alleged offence and punishment at the time Kanu was convicted on November 20, 2025.

The lawyer argued that if the legislation under which Kanu was prosecuted had already been repealed, invoking a savings provision would not automatically resolve the constitutional question.

“A savings clause is not a penal statute,” Chidera stated.

“It does not create the offence. It does not prescribe the punishment. It is not, by itself, the written criminal law contemplated by Section 36(12).”

He explained that the function of a savings clause is to preserve specified legal consequences, such as proceedings, investigations or liabilities, according to the exact wording of the applicable provision.

According to him, such a provision should not be interpreted as automatically transforming a repealed criminal statute into an extant penal law.

Focus on TPPA Sections 97 and 98(3)

Chidera said the Court of Appeal should directly address the statutory framework surrounding the case, including Section 97 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (TPPA), which he said provides for proceedings commenced under repealed legislation to continue and be completed under the 2022 Act.

He also called for an examination of Section 98(3) of the legislation.

The lawyer said the appellate court should determine what law was in force when Kanu’s conviction was entered, which written law defined the alleged offence, and which written law prescribed the applicable punishment.

He further asked whether a savings provision preserving existing proceedings could satisfy the constitutional requirement under Section 36(12) for an offence and its punishment to be prescribed by written law.

“These are not complicated questions. They are questions of law,” he said.

‘Show Him the Law’

Chidera said the questions formed part of the issues Kanu had raised during his trial when he demanded that the prosecution identify the law supporting the charges against him.

He said Kanu was now asking the Court of Appeal to address the same issue.

“Show him the law,” the lawyer stated.

He challenged the Federal Government to appear before the court if it believed its position was legally sustainable.

“Let it explain Section 97 of the TPPA. Let it explain Section 98(3). Let it identify the operative, extant and subsisting written law upon which the conviction was entered. Let the Court decide,” he said.

‘Conviction Is Not Validated by Public Ignorance’

Chidera cautioned against relying on what he described as public unfamiliarity with the technicalities of criminal law to dismiss the constitutional issues raised by Kanu.

He maintained that the validity of a conviction should be determined by applicable law rather than public perception or the number of people who understand the legal arguments involved.

“The courtroom is not a public-relations exercise,” he said.

“A conviction is not validated by the number of people who do not understand the law.”

The lawyer further argued that a repealed law does not automatically become an extant written criminal law simply because a savings clause is said to have preserved certain proceedings.

He said the issue could attract broader scrutiny if the Federal Government seeks to defend such an interpretation before the appellate courts.

Calls on Government to Defend Conviction

Chidera ultimately called on the Federal Government to stop avoiding substantive adjudication and defend Kanu’s conviction before the Court of Appeal.

He urged the government to identify the law relied upon, explain the relevant statutory provisions and allow the appellate court to determine the legal consequences.

“Without prejudging the outcome, the whole world is watching,” he said.

“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu asked one simple question. SHOW HIM THE LAW.”

The statement was signed by Barrister Christopher Chidera, Esq., identified as a member of the Global Legal Consortium to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.