‘Where Is the Written Law?/’ — Lawyer Challenges Legal Basis of Kanu’s Conviction

• Legal practitioner Onyedikachi Ifedi has questioned the legal foundation of Nnamdi Kanu’s conviction, raising concerns over the use of a repealed law and citing constitutional requirements for criminal convictions.

A legal practitioner, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has raised fresh questions over the legal foundation of the conviction of Nnamdi Kanu, arguing that the proceedings raise serious concerns about the use of a repealed law in a criminal case.

Ifedi, in a statement titled “Ignorantia Judicis Est Calamitas Innocentis — Et Periculum Societati”, meaning “An ignorant judge is a calamity to the innocent—and a danger to society,” focused on the proceedings before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court.

According to him, Justice Omotosho took Kanu’s plea de novo on March 29, 2025, and subsequently entered a conviction, despite the Terrorism (Prevention) Act (TPAA) 2013 having been repealed on August 3, 2022.

He cited the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Egigia (2024) LPELR-62009(SC), in which the apex court held that a repealed law no longer has legal life and cannot serve as the basis for comparison with an existing law.

Ifedi noted that Justice Omotosho himself quoted the Supreme Court’s position verbatim in his judgment, arguing that this demonstrated that the trial judge was aware of the legal effect of repeal.

The lawyer further drew attention to proceedings recorded on November 4, 2025, where he said Justice Omotosho stated: “If there is no written law then you cannot be convicted.”

According to Ifedi, the statement is contained in the certified true copies of the court proceedings.

He argued that the position is consistent with Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and its penalty prescribed in a written law.

Ifedi described the constitutional requirement as “non-derogable,” arguing that it does not permit exceptions based on savings clauses, plea bargains or orders remitting a case for retrial.

He maintained that because a repealed law is no longer operative, the central question arising from the proceedings is the specific written law under which Kanu’s plea was taken on March 29, 2025, and the conviction judgment delivered on November 20, 2025.

“Where is the written law on which plea was taken on 29 March 2025 and conviction judgment of 20 November 2025 entered?” he asked.

Ifedi alleged that neither the prosecution, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Awomolo, nor the trial judge provided an answer to the question.

He said the issue raises serious concerns for the administration of criminal justice, adding that if the alleged error resulted from ignorance of the law, the consequences would be grave, while a deliberate departure from the law would raise even more serious questions.

“A criminal court is the last place in which ignorance of the law can be permitted to destroy liberty,” Ifedi stated.

He concluded with the Latin maxim: “Ignorantia judicis est calamitas innocentis — et periculum societati,” which he translated as, “An ignorant judge is a calamity to the innocent—and a danger to society.”

The statement was issued by Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq.