Christopher Chidera, a member of the Global Legal Consortium for Nnamdi Kanu, has raised concerns about the legality of Kanu's conviction and life imprisonment. Chidera argues that the conviction was based on a repealed law and errors made by the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, and Federal High Court. According to him, Kanu was discharged and the charges against him quashed by the Court of Appeal on October 13, 2022.
Chidera explained that from the date of the discharge, every subsequent step required a fresh legal foundation, which was not established. He stated that the central issue was the distinction between saving a pending proceeding after the repeal of a law and reviving the repealed law itself. Chidera emphasized that proceedings can survive repeal, but the repealed penal law itself does not.
The lawyer focused on the role of Justice Tsammani, now a Justice of the Supreme Court, and the principle of functus officio in the Court of Appeal. He alleged that a stay was used to prevent the discharge from taking effect, allowing the matter to remain. Chidera argued that this mechanism could not lawfully keep a discharged person within a concluded criminal process.
Chidera also questioned the Supreme Court's judgment, which set aside the Court of Appeal's decision. He argued that this did not revive the quashed charges. The lawyer emphasized that winning an appeal does not automatically mean the dead counts are alive again, and that the Supreme Court cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction on the Federal High Court where the relevant law does not provide such authority.
The Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Omotosho, was also faulted by Chidera. He argued that the court treated the saving and transitional provisions in the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, as keeping the repealed law alive. Chidera cited Sections 97 and 98 of the new Act, which require the matter to be carried onto the law then in force, not tried to the end as if the repealed Act still created the offences.
Chidera cited Section 122 of the Evidence Act on judicial notice of written law, including repeal, and Section 36(12) of the Constitution. He emphasized that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence and the penalty are written in a law in force. The lawyer warned that if this method is allowed to stand, any quashed count can be recalled, and any repealed statute can be kept on life support.
Chidera identified three failures in the conviction process: the Court of Appeal's failure to conclude its work, the Supreme Court's treatment of an appeal as reviving quashed counts, and the Federal High Court's treatment of the saving of proceedings as preserving the repealed law. He concluded that a conviction is lawful only if three things exist: a living charge, a court with jurisdiction, and a written law still in force that creates both the offence and the penalty.
Key points
- The conviction of Nnamdi Kanu was based on a repealed law.
- The Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, and Federal High Court made separate legal errors that led to Kanu's conviction.
- The lawyer argues that the conviction is unlawful and may set a precedent for future cases.
