How Nigerian Media Buried the Constitutional Time Bomb in Kanu’s Conviction

• Legal practitioner Christopher Chidera, Esq., has launched a sharp criticism against major Nigerian media outlets, accusing editorial boards of misrepresenting the legal foundation surrounding the conviction of IPOB leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

In an open statement addressed to mainstream press organizations, Chidera asserted that recent media reporting has oversimplified Kanu’s appeal by framing it primarily around an allocutus (plea for mitigation) technicality, while ignoring core constitutional issues regarding the validity of the statute used for the conviction.

Allegations of Invalid Statute Usage

At the center of Chidera’s argument is the claim that Justice James Kolawole Omotosho delivered a conviction on November 20, 2025, under the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 (TPAA)—a statute he states was explicitly repealed on May 12, 2022, by Section 98(1) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (TPPA).

Chidera cited Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which stipulates that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offense unless the offense is defined and the penalty is prescribed in a written law in force at the time.

“Section 98(1) of the TPPA 2022 expressly repealed the 2013 Act,” Chidera stated. “By reporting this case as if the TPAA still had legal life, media outlets have deceived the public into believing Kanu was convicted under a valid statute.”

Addressing the reliance on Section 98(3)—a savings clause utilized to sustain the conviction—Chidera contended that savings clauses exist to preserve ongoing investigations or prior acts, but cannot empower a court to hand down a fresh conviction under a dead statute years after its repeal.

Critique of Press Coverage and Institutional Accountability

The statement further criticized the press for focusing heavily on the denial of an allocutus, describing it as a distraction from what he terms a fundamental jurisdictional flaw that goes to the heart of the trial’s constitutionality.

Chidera also raised concerns regarding systemic bias, pointing out the key figures involved across the trial bench, prosecution, ministry, and security operations, calling on the press to hold public officers accountable regardless of institutional or political ties.

“The Court of Appeal will ultimately decide this case, but the press has a primary duty to speak truth to power and report the full legal context accurately,” the statement concluded.

As of press time, the editorial boards referenced and the relevant judicial offices have not issued official responses to Chidera’s statement. The matter remains subject to proceedings before the Court of Appeal.