Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal Hinges on One Question: “Show Me the Law,” Legal Brief Argues

• A legal briefing by Christopher Chidera Esq. says the core of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s appeal is not whether his terrorism case survived the repeal of an old law, but whether there was a valid law in force at the time of his conviction that defined the offences and prescribed the punishment.

A new public briefing note by legal practitioner Christopher Chidera Esq. has outlined what he describes as the central issue in the appeal filed by IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, arguing that the case revolves around a simple constitutional question: What written law in force on November 20, 2025, authorized his conviction?

According to the briefing, much of the public debate surrounding Kanu’s appeal has focused on whether the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 automatically invalidated ongoing cases. However, the author insists that this is not the primary argument before the court.

The note acknowledges that the 2013 terrorism law was repealed and replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, a fact that is not disputed by any party. It further states that Kanu repeatedly raised the issue of the repeal before the trial court on several occasions in October and November 2025, urging the court to take judicial notice of the change in the law under Section 122 of the Evidence Act.

According to the briefing, the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako Omotosho, allegedly declined to formally take judicial notice of the repeal and instead proceeded on an “assuming without conceding” basis. The author argues that this prevented the court from fully addressing the constitutional question regarding the law in force at the time of conviction.

The briefing also concedes that Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act contains a savings clause that preserved ongoing proceedings, rights, obligations, and liabilities after the repeal of the previous law. As such, it accepts that Kanu’s case was legally allowed to continue despite the repeal.

However, the note draws a distinction between preserving a legal proceeding and preserving the repealed statute itself as an active criminal law.

It argues that while a savings clause can keep a case alive, it does not define criminal offences or prescribe punishments. Citing Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, the author maintains that no person can be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and punishment are contained in a written law that is in force at the time of conviction.

The briefing further references Section 6 of the Interpretation Act, which provides that the repeal of a law does not automatically terminate existing proceedings or liabilities. Nevertheless, the author contends that preserving a proceeding is not equivalent to preserving a repealed law as the legal basis for a criminal conviction.

At the heart of the appeal, the briefing says, is the argument that the trial court never clearly identified the specific provisions of the 2022 Act that defined the offences and prescribed the punishments for which Kanu was convicted on November 20, 2025.

“The question is simple: What written law in force on 20 November 2025 authorised the conviction?” the note states.

The author argues that this was the question repeatedly posed by Kanu throughout the proceedings and one that remained unanswered in the trial court’s judgment.

With the matter now before the Court of Appeal, the briefing urges the appellate court to directly address the issue by identifying the exact law in force at the time of conviction that created the offences and prescribed the penalties imposed.

DON’T MISS: Orji Uzor Kalu Accused of Seeking Massive Cut From SEDC Funds

According to the note, if such a law can be clearly identified, the court can uphold the conviction on that basis. If not, the court may have to consider the constitutional implications of Section 36(12) of the Constitution.

The briefing concludes by insisting that the appeal is not about whether Kanu’s case survived the repeal of the 2013 law, but whether the legal foundation used to convict him remained valid after the repeal.

“This appeal is about whether the law used to convict survived repeal,” the author states, adding that the central challenge remains unchanged: “Show me the law.”