How Justice Omotosho Turned Criminal Law Upside Down to Convict Nnamdi Kanu

• According to Chidera, Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution requires a criminal offence to be defined and its punishment prescribed in a written law before a person can be convicted.

A legal practitioner, Christopher Chidera, has challenged the conviction of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, arguing that the judgment relied on a terrorism law that had already been repealed.

Chidera, in a legal commentary titled “The Conviction That Killed the Law to Save Itself: How Justice Omotosho Turned Criminal Law Upside Down to Convict Nnamdi Kanu,” questioned the legal basis of the conviction delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court on November 20, 2025.

The lawyer’s central argument is that Kanu could not lawfully have been convicted under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 because the legislation was repealed on May 12, 2022.

According to Chidera, Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution requires a criminal offence to be defined and its punishment prescribed in a written law before a person can be convicted.

He argued that the judgment failed to identify an operative penal statute that satisfied the constitutional requirement on the date Kanu was convicted.

Lawyer Questions Use of 2013 Terrorism Act

Chidera said Justice Omotosho convicted Kanu under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, despite the legislation having been repealed.

He cited the Supreme Court’s position in State v. Egigia (2024), which he said established that a repealed law ceases to have legal life and cannot be treated as though it remains in force.

The lawyer argued that the court’s description of the repealed legislation as “extant,” “operational,” “existing” and “in force” was inconsistent with the legal effect of repeal.

Dispute Over Section 98(3)

A major part of Chidera’s argument concerns Section 98(3) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2022.

He alleged that the provision appeared for the first time in Justice Omotosho’s reserved judgment and had not formed part of the charge or been argued before the court during the proceedings.

According to him, the provision is a savings clause designed to preserve pending proceedings following the repeal of earlier legislation, rather than a mechanism for bringing a repealed criminal statute back into force.

“A saved proceeding is not a resurrected statute,” Chidera argued.

He maintained that preserving a prosecution does not automatically restore the offence and penalty provisions contained in a repealed law.

Lawyer Raises Fair Hearing Concerns

Chidera also questioned the handling of Kanu’s arguments concerning the repeal of the 2013 legislation.

He said Kanu had asked the court to take judicial notice of the repeal under the Evidence Act but that the request was not granted.

The lawyer further alleged that Kanu subsequently produced the court’s 25-page no-case ruling after the judge referred to the issue as having already been determined.

Chidera claimed that the ruling did not contain such a determination and argued that the court should have addressed the issue before proceeding to conviction.

He said the subsequent reliance on Section 98(3) in the final judgment deprived Kanu of an opportunity to respond to the provision.

Section 36(12) at the Centre of Challenge

The lawyer’s argument ultimately rests on Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law.

Chidera argued that neither the repealed 2013 Act nor Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act could satisfy that constitutional requirement.

He contended that the 2013 Act was no longer in force, while Section 98(3) merely preserved pending proceedings and did not itself create an offence or prescribe a punishment.

He therefore argued that the constitutional requirement for a valid criminal conviction was not met.

Appeal Expected to Determine Legal Questions

Chidera predicted that the Court of Appeal would consider issues including whether the trial court properly addressed the repeal of the 2013 legislation, whether the savings provision could preserve the application of the repealed law, and whether Kanu was afforded a fair opportunity to respond to the legal provisions relied upon in the judgment.

He concluded that the alleged procedural and constitutional violations rendered the conviction invalid and described it as a “nullity.”

The arguments form part of Chidera’s legal analysis and represent his interpretation of the judgment and applicable law. They are not, by themselves, a ruling of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court on the validity of Kanu’s conviction.