Overruling the Supreme Court: How Omotosho’s Arrogance Destroyed the State’s Case from the Bench

• A Nigerian lawyer, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has raised fresh legal questions over the conviction and sentencing of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

A Nigerian lawyer, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has raised fresh legal questions over the conviction and sentencing of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, alleging that Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, failed to comply with mandatory provisions of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.

In the seventh instalment of his 150-part legal commentary on the judgment delivered on November 20, 2025, Ifedi argued that the trial judge committed a fundamental jurisdictional error by proceeding with Kanu’s trial under the earlier terrorism legislation rather than transitioning the case to the 2022 Act.

The lawyer specifically questioned the court’s decision to reject an application by Kanu seeking the transfer of the charges from the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2013 to the 2022 legislation.

According to Ifedi, Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act contain mandatory transitional provisions which, in his interpretation, required the trial to proceed under the new legislation.

He maintained that the court’s refusal to grant the application raised serious constitutional concerns, particularly in relation to Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and its penalty prescribed in a written law.

Lawyer cites Supreme Court ruling

Ifedi also referenced a Supreme Court decision, which he said established that a court must have jurisdiction to try a defendant under a valid and subsisting law.

He argued that the trial court’s decision to reject the defence application and subsequently deliver its judgment under the earlier legislation was inconsistent with the legal principles he attributed to the Supreme Court.

The lawyer further maintained that the savings provision under Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act should not be interpreted as permitting proceedings to continue indefinitely under repealed legislation.

According to him, the provision preserved pending proceedings while Sections 97 and 98(2) provided the mechanism for transitioning such cases to the new legal framework.

Questions over jurisdiction and constitutional compliance

The legal practitioner argued that the alleged failure to comply with the transitional provisions affected the jurisdiction of the trial court and could constitute grounds for challenging the conviction on appeal.

He also invoked the Supreme Court’s decision in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim, a landmark authority on the conditions necessary for a court to exercise jurisdiction.

Ifedi contended that where a court fails to comply with mandatory statutory requirements, the validity of its proceedings may be called into question.

He therefore maintained that the alleged failure to apply the relevant provisions of the 2022 Act could have serious implications for the legal sustainability of the judgment against Kanu.

Defence of the judgment challenged

In his commentary, Ifedi questioned why the trial court rejected the defence’s request for the application of the 2022 legislation, arguing that the issue deserved detailed judicial consideration.

He further suggested that the newer legislation contains procedural and evidentiary safeguards that could have affected the prosecution’s case.

However, his assertions about the likely outcome of the trial under the 2022 Act and the judge’s alleged motives remain arguments advanced by the author and would require judicial determination.

Appeal proceedings may revisit the issues

The lawyer maintained that the alleged jurisdictional errors could not simply be overlooked by an appellate court, insisting that the court record would be central to determining whether the trial judge complied with the applicable statutory and constitutional provisions.

He called for a thorough examination of the relevant sections of the 2022 Act, the Supreme Court’s earlier pronouncements and the proceedings leading to Kanu’s conviction.

The central question raised in the seventh instalment is whether the savings provision under Section 98(3) permitted the continuation of the trial under the earlier legislation or whether the transitional provisions required the charges to be brought under the 2022 Act.

The question, according to Ifedi, is fundamental to determining the legality of the proceedings and the validity of the resulting judgment.