A public legal briefing by Barrister Christopher Chidera has challenged the legality of the conviction of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, arguing that the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho was based on a terrorism law that no longer exists.
According to the briefing, Nigeria’s National Assembly repealed the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act (TPAA) 2013 in 2022 and replaced it with a new terrorism law. The lawyer argues that once a law is repealed, it becomes legally “dead” and cannot be used to try, convict, or sentence anyone.
The briefing notes that while the trial judge reportedly acknowledged that the old law had been repealed, he nevertheless proceeded to convict Kanu under the 2013 law rather than applying the new 2022 terrorism legislation. This, the lawyer argues, directly violates constitutional principles which require that punishment can only be imposed under an existing law.
Barr. Chidera dismissed the judge’s claim of a “smooth transition” from the old law to the new one, stating that no such transition occurred in practice. He argued that a genuine transition would have required new charges, procedures, and sentencing under the current law—none of which, he said, happened.
The briefing warned that allowing convictions based on repealed laws sets a dangerous precedent, arguing that it undermines the authority of Parliament and threatens the rule of law.
“This is not about supporting or opposing Kanu,” the document states. “It is about law versus lawlessness. A court that convicts under a dead law is not doing justice.”
The legal note concludes by urging Nigerians to critically examine why the court did not apply the current terrorism law, describing the issue as the central flaw in the case against Nnamdi Kanu.
0 Comments