Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
The legal battle over the terrorism conviction of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has intensified, with his legal team insisting that the Court of Appeal must provide a definitive answer to the question the trial judge refused to address: what existing written law in force on the day of his conviction defined the offences he was found guilty of? The fresh constitutional challenge was outlined in a public briefing note by Barrister Christopher Chidera, one of Kanu's counsels, on June 10, 2026, and reinforced by his younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, in a statement on June 9, 2026.
The central issue, as repeatedly argued by the defence, is rooted in 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 the penalty is prescribed in a written law. The defence team argues that the conviction delivered on November 20, 2025, by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja fails this fundamental constitutional test because it was not anchored on any specific offence‑creating provision of the extant Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022. Instead, Justice Omotosho relied on a savings clause, Section 98(3) of the TPPA, to retroactively base the conviction on provisions of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act (TPAA) 2013, a law that had already been repealed.
In a detailed public briefing note titled "The Simple Question At The Heart Of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu's Appeal," Barrister Chidera stated that the appeal is not about whether the criminal case survived the repeal of the TPAA 2013. He argued that while a savings clause can keep a case moving procedurally, it cannot serve as the substantive criminal law under which a person is convicted. "A savings clause keeps the case moving. It does not define any crime. It does not prescribe any punishment. It is not the law you can convict someone under," Chidera wrote. He noted that during proceedings on October 23, 2024, and November 4, 5, 7 and 20, 2025, Kanu repeatedly invited the court to take judicial notice of the repeal under Section 122 of the Evidence Act, but the court declined to do so, proceeding instead on an "assuming without conceding" basis. As a result, the court never properly determined what written law was actually in force for the purpose of conviction.
Prince Emmanuel Kanu, speaking in a statement on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, said the appellate court must now answer the single question Justice Omotosho refused to answer: identify the written law in force on the conviction date, November 20, 2025. "On 20 November 2025, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu stood in court and asked the most dangerous question any accused person can ask a judge: 'Show me the law,'" Prince Emmanuel said. "If the Federal Government or the Court of Appeal judges cannot identify a complete written law that authorised the conviction, it is game over." He further argued that Justice Omotosho never identified any offence‑creating provision of the TPPA 2022 under which Kanu was charged, tried, or convicted, yet the conviction remained anchored to the repealed TPAA 2013.
The defence has also seized on a cross‑appeal filed by the Federal Government seeking to increase Kanu's sentence from life imprisonment to the death penalty. Aloy Ejimakor, Kanu's lead counsel, warned on June 8, 2026, that the government's cross‑appeal effectively acknowledges that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over certain aspects of the sentencing, a position that, according to the defence, undermines the entire conviction. "If the court lacked jurisdiction at the sentencing stage, the entire conviction is invalid," Ejimakor argued, noting that jurisdiction is a continuum, not a divisible buffet.
The IPOB leader was convicted on seven terrorism-related counts and sentenced to life imprisonment at the Sokoto Correctional Centre. He has since filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, seeking to overturn both the conviction and the sentence. As the higher court prepares to hear the case, the fundamental question remains: does the Nigerian Constitution permit a citizen to be convicted under a law that no longer exists? The Court of Appeal's answer will determine not just the fate of one man, but the constitutional boundaries of criminal justice in Nigeria.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com ✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments