Kanu’s Unlawful Conviction, the Law That Was Already Dead, and the Shame That Is Waiting for Nigeria’s Judiciary

• Christopher Chidera, Esq., has challenged the legal basis of Nnamdi Kanu’s conviction, arguing that the trial court relied on a terrorism law that had been repealed before the judgment.

A legal briefing by Christopher Chidera, Esq., has challenged the legal foundation of the conviction of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, arguing that the trial court relied on a terrorism law that had been repealed before the conviction.

In the briefing titled “Kanu’s Unlawful Conviction, the Repealed Law, and the Shame That Is Waiting for Nigeria’s Judiciary,” Chidera questioned the legal basis upon which Justice James Omotosho convicted Kanu on November 20, 2025.

The lawyer’s argument centres on the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, as amended in 2013, which he said was repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.

According to Chidera, Section 98(1) of the 2022 Act expressly repealed the earlier legislation.

Lawyer raises constitutional question

Chidera argued that Sections 36(8) and 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution address separate legal questions that should not be conflated when determining the validity of a criminal conviction.

He maintained that Section 36(8) concerns the law applicable to conduct at the time an alleged offence was committed, while Section 36(12) establishes the requirement that a criminal offence must be defined and its penalty prescribed by written law before a person can be convicted.

The lawyer alleged that the trial court relied on the principle contained in Section 36(8) when addressing a question that, in his view, should have been determined under Section 36(12).

He argued that the distinction was significant because the legislation under which the charges were originally brought had subsequently been repealed.

‘Repealed law cannot support conviction’

The briefing also referred to Section 315(4)(b) of the Constitution, which Chidera interpreted as linking the status of existing law to legislation that remains in force.

He argued that although the repealed terrorism legislation may have governed conduct at the time of the alleged offences, its previous existence did not automatically mean it remained the written law capable of supporting a conviction in November 2025.

Chidera further examined the transitional provisions of the 2022 terrorism legislation, particularly Sections 97 and 98, arguing that the new law provided a mechanism for dealing with proceedings and liabilities arising under the repealed legislation.

According to him, preserving an existing proceeding does not amount to reviving the repealed statute itself.

Lawyer describes alleged error as fundamental

The lawyer rejected the possibility that the issue amounted merely to an incorrect citation or minor judicial error.

He argued that the central issue was whether the court identified the appropriate law capable of constitutionally supporting the conviction at the time judgment was delivered.

Chidera contended that the court should have considered the corresponding provisions of the 2022 Act when determining the legal basis for the conviction.

Appeal expected to test legal arguments

The briefing ultimately argues that if the constitutional requirements for a valid criminal conviction were not satisfied, the conviction could be liable to be set aside on appeal.

Chidera also criticised what he described as delays surrounding the hearing of Kanu’s appeal, arguing that the constitutional questions raised by the case would eventually have to be addressed by the appellate courts.

The arguments contained in the briefing represent Christopher Chidera’s legal interpretation of the relevant constitutional and terrorism-law provisions. The validity of those arguments, as well as the legality of Kanu’s conviction, remains a matter for determination by the appellate courts.