A legal expert has stated that the court cannot convict Nnamdi Kanu on a repealed statute, amid attempts by the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, or IPOB, to postpone the November 20, 2025, judgement in his terrorism trial.
The Abuja Federal High Court’s Justice James Omotosho set the date for the trial’s verdict, which has been pending for a number of years.
Nnamdi Kanu and his defence team have argued that the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition Act) 2022 revoked the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013, which was the basis for his charges.
Following this, on Wednesday, Christopher Chidera, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium in a press release, argued that it was totally wrong to prosecute Mazi Kanu under a repealed law and as a result, he can’t be convicted based on a non-existent statute.
Join our WhatsApp community
“Not one Nigerian court, from the Supreme Court to the High Court, has ever sustained a trial or conviction under a repealed statute. Every known attempt was quashed as a nullity,” Chidera stressed.
He contended that “there can be no conviction without a written law in force at trial” and criticised the court for prosecuting the IPOB leader in spite of what he called “glaring evidence” that the statute under which he was charged had been abolished.
He further contended that Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits conviction for any offence not “defined and in force” at the time of trial, cannot be overridden by laws like the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act.
The defence team for Nnamdi Kanu further noted that a thorough study of Nigerian and international legal histories reveals no examples in which a repealed statute supported a criminal trial, conviction, or plea.
Also citing FRN v. Osahon (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 973) 361, he insisted, “No prosecution survives repeal; general savings cannot revive repealed offences. Charges are struck out; accused discharged.”
Stressing that “offence not defined by extant law is unconstitutional,” he added, “In every case, repeal ended proceedings. Courts discharged accused persons, struck out charges, or voided convictions. No trial proceeded to a valid conclusion under a repealed law, not once.
“No person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law in force at the time of trial. Once repealed, the law is no longer in force, any charge under it collapses ab initio.”
Join our WhatsApp community
According to Chidera, when an appellate court orders retrial after repeal, the new trial is a fresh proceeding, not a continuation, as the repealed law cannot revive the charge.
The lawyer stood his ground on the notion that the court cannot convict Nnamdi Kanu, adding that, “Repeal kills prosecution totally, instantly, and irrevocably. To proceed under a repealed statute is to conduct a trial without law, an act forbidden by Section 36(12) and condemned by precedent.”
Join Our Social Media Channels:
