How Justice Omotosho’s Conviction of Kanu Now Haunts the Nigerian Judiciary

• A member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium, Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., has challenged the legal basis of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s conviction, arguing that the judgment was delivered under a repealed law.

A member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium, Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., has challenged the legal basis of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s conviction, arguing that the judgment was delivered under a repealed law.

Ifedi, in a legal briefing issued on Friday, August 21, 2026, said the case raises fundamental constitutional questions concerning the law applicable to Kanu’s plea, trial and conviction.

He questioned whether there was an extant written penal law in force at the time of Kanu’s plea, trial and conviction capable of supporting the offences for which he was convicted.

According to him, the central issue is the interpretation of the transitional and savings provisions contained in the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022.

Ifedi argued that a savings clause could preserve pending proceedings from being terminated following the repeal of an earlier law, but could not itself create a criminal offence or prescribe a punishment.

He specifically cited Section 98(3) of the TPPA, which provides for pending proceedings to continue despite the repeal of the previous legislation.

He, however, argued that Section 97 of the same Act was more significant because it provides that proceedings pending before a court “shall be continued under this Act.”

The lawyer said the provision was mandatory and required proceedings affected by the repeal to continue under the TPPA.

He further linked the provision to Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and penalty are prescribed in a written law.

Ifedi argued that the combined effect of the constitutional provision and Section 97 of the TPPA meant that Kanu’s conviction ought to have been based on the TPPA rather than the repealed Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act (TPAA).

He said the issue became particularly significant because Kanu’s plea and subsequent trial were conducted afresh on March 29, 2025.

“The plea was taken anew. The trial was conducted anew. The conviction was entered anew,” he said in the briefing.

According to him, the TPAA had already been repealed by the time the proceedings commenced afresh, making its continued application to the conviction legally questionable.

Reference to State v. Egigia

The legal practitioner also drew attention to Justice James Omotosho’s reliance on the decision in State v. Egigia (2024).

Ifedi said the judgment recognised the principle that a repealed statute no longer has legal life, but argued that the same principle raised questions about the subsequent reliance on the repealed legislation in Kanu’s case.

He described the alleged contradiction as one of the most significant issues requiring determination by the appellate courts.

The lawyer said the matter should not be dismissed as a mere technicality, insisting that it concerns the constitutional requirements governing criminal convictions.

Questions for appellate courts

Ifedi raised two major questions for the judiciary.

First, he asked why Kanu was allegedly convicted under a repealed law despite the constitutional requirement concerning written laws in force.

Second, he questioned why Section 97 of the TPPA, which states that pending proceedings “shall be continued under this Act,” was allegedly not applied.

He argued that the answers to those questions would determine whether the conviction can withstand appellate scrutiny.

Appeal proceedings

The briefing also criticised the Federal Government’s handling of Kanu’s pending appeals.

Ifedi claimed that Kanu’s appeal before the Court of Appeal had been filed but that the government’s response was overdue.

He also claimed that a challenge concerning the Supreme Court’s remittal decision, filed in November 2025, had yet to receive a response or be listed for determination.

The lawyer contrasted the alleged delays with the speed with which the government had previously pursued legal proceedings relating to Kanu’s detention.

He argued that the government’s alleged failure to respond to the pending challenges had heightened questions surrounding the legal foundation of the conviction.

Three possible outcomes

Ifedi said the appellate courts would ultimately have to confront the constitutional and statutory issues raised in the case.

He identified three possible outcomes: upholding the conviction, quashing it, or adopting another interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.

He argued that each option would carry significant implications for the Nigerian justice system, particularly concerning the relationship between repealed legislation, transitional provisions and constitutional safeguards.

The legal practitioner concluded that the Kanu case had become a major test of constitutional compliance, judicial integrity and the rule of law.

He called on the appellate courts to determine whether the conviction complied with Section 36(12) of the Constitution and the transitional provisions of the TPPA.