Christopher Chidera, a member of the Global Legal Consortium for Nnamdi Kanu, has expressed concerns over the judiciary's handling of Kanu's conviction. Kanu was convicted on terrorism-related charges in 2025 and is serving a life sentence in Sokoto. Chidera argues that the conviction was based on a repealed terrorism law, specifically the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, as amended in 2013. He claims that this law was repealed by Section 98(1) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
Chidera's concerns center on the distinction between Sections 36(8) and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution. Section 36(8) deals with the law applicable to conduct at the time an alleged offence was committed, while Section 36(12) concerns the written law defining the offence and prescribing its punishment at the time of conviction. Chidera alleges that Justice James Omotosho, who convicted Kanu, relied on the repealed law to justify the conviction.
According to Chidera, the judge's reliance on the repealed law was a central flaw in the judgment. He argues that Section 36(12) of the Constitution requires a written law that defines the offence and prescribes its penalty at the time of conviction. Chidera claims that the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 no longer constitutes written law in force on November 20, 2025, the date of Kanu's conviction.
Chidera also cites Section 315(4)(b) of the Constitution, which defines "existing law" as an enactment that "is in force." He argues that Sections 36(12) and 315(4)(b), when read together, mean that a repealed statute cannot serve as written law supporting a conviction. Chidera rejects the argument that saving provisions of the 2022 Act could revive the repealed legislation.
The lawyer further argues that Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act provide a legal pathway for existing proceedings following the repeal of earlier legislation. He claims that the judge did not have to invent anything, but rather follow the road the National Assembly had already paved. Chidera describes the alleged reliance on the repealed law as a fundamental error that goes to the foundation of the conviction.
Chidera criticizes the reported delay in listing Kanu's appeal, arguing that postponing the hearing will not resolve the legal issues raised. He emphasizes that Nigeria can delay the listing, but cannot erase the Constitution. Kanu's appeal against his conviction is yet to be heard.
The case has significant implications for the judiciary and the rule of law in Nigeria. Chidera's arguments highlight the need for the judiciary to carefully consider the legal basis for convictions, particularly in cases involving terrorism-related charges. The outcome of Kanu's appeal will be closely watched by human rights groups and legal experts.
Key points
- Lawyer challenges conviction citing reliance on repealed law
- Judiciary faces questions over legal basis of conviction
- Appeal hearing delayed, sparking concerns over rule of law
