As the Court of Appeal prepares to consider key issues arising from the conviction of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu, a legal practitioner, Christopher Chidera Esq., has released a public briefing arguing that the appeal turns on a single constitutional question that he says was never fully addressed by the trial court.
In the briefing titled “The Simple Question at the Heart of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal,” Chidera contends that much of the public debate surrounding the case has focused on issues that are secondary to the core legal dispute.
According to him, the appeal is not fundamentally about whether the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 automatically brought an end to the prosecution against Kanu. Neither, he says, is it primarily about the effectiveness of the savings clause contained in the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
Rather, the lawyer argues that the central issue before the appellate court is whether there was a written law in force on the date of Kanu’s conviction that legally defined the offences for which he was found guilty and prescribed the punishments imposed by the court.
Repeal of the Former Terrorism Law Forms Basis of Argument
Chidera noted that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 was repealed following the enactment of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 by the National Assembly.
According to him, the fact of repeal is not in dispute and has never been challenged by any party connected to the proceedings.
The lawyer recalled that during the trial, Kanu repeatedly called the attention of the court to the repeal and urged the presiding judge to formally take judicial notice of the legislative change.
He stated that these submissions were made during court proceedings held on October 23 and November 4, 5, 7 and 20, 2025.
According to Chidera, the requests were made pursuant to Section 122 of the Evidence Act, which requires courts to recognize and apply laws in force in Nigeria without requiring formal proof from litigants.
However, he alleged that the court declined to expressly take judicial notice of the repeal and instead proceeded on what he described as an “assuming without conceding” approach.
He argued that this left unanswered a critical legal question concerning the exact statutory foundation upon which the conviction rested.
Savings Clause Not Being Challenged
The lawyer was quick to clarify that Kanu’s appeal does not seek to invalidate the savings clause contained in Section 98(3) of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
According to him, the appeal accepts that the savings provision preserved ongoing proceedings, liabilities, rights and obligations that arose under the repealed legislation.
He further noted that Section 6 of the Interpretation Act similarly protects pending legal matters from automatically collapsing following the repeal of a statute.
For this reason, Chidera maintained that there is broad agreement that the criminal proceedings against Kanu could continue despite the repeal of the 2013 law.
“The survival of the case is not the issue,” he stated.
“The appeal accepts that ongoing proceedings can be preserved by law. The real issue is whether the legal foundation for conviction remained in force.”
Distinction Between Preserving Proceedings and Authorizing Convictions
According to Chidera, one of the most misunderstood aspects of the appeal is the difference between preserving a legal proceeding and preserving the substantive criminal law upon which a conviction must be based.
He argued that a savings clause serves only as a transitional mechanism designed to prevent legal disruption when legislation is amended or repealed.
While such provisions may preserve rights, obligations and pending actions, he contended that they do not themselves define criminal offences or prescribe penalties.
“A savings clause keeps proceedings alive,” he explained.
“It does not create criminal offences. It does not establish punishment. It is not, by itself, the law under which a citizen can be convicted.”
The lawyer said this distinction lies at the heart of the constitutional challenge now before the Court of Appeal.
Constitutional Requirement Under Section 36(12)
Chidera anchored his argument on Section 36(12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
The constitutional provision states that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law.
According to him, the provision imposes a strict requirement that criminal convictions must be linked to an identifiable law that is in force at the relevant time.
He argued that because the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 had already been repealed before November 20, 2025—the date Kanu was convicted—the court was obligated to identify another written law in force that authorized the conviction.
The lawyer maintained that this issue goes beyond procedural continuity and strikes at the constitutional validity of the judgment itself.
Allegation of Unanswered Legal Question
Chidera further argued that throughout the proceedings, Kanu repeatedly sought an answer to what he described as a straightforward legal question.
According to him, Kanu was not asking the court to prove that the case survived repeal.
Neither, he said, was Kanu disputing the existence of the savings clause.
Instead, he claimed that Kanu consistently demanded that the court identify the specific written law in force on the date of conviction that defined the offences and prescribed the punishments imposed upon him.
The lawyer argued that although the judgment relied on the savings clause to justify continuation of the proceedings, it allegedly failed to clearly identify the operative statutory provisions that formed the basis of the conviction.
Court of Appeal Faces Crucial Constitutional Task
Looking ahead, Chidera said the responsibility now rests with the Court of Appeal to determine whether a valid written law existed on November 20, 2025, that authorized Kanu’s conviction.
According to him, if the appellate court identifies such a law, it may conclude that the constitutional requirements were satisfied.
However, if the court is unable to identify a written law in force that defined the offences and prescribed the punishments in question, he believes the court will have to consider the constitutional implications arising from Section 36(12).
Legal analysts say the appeal could become an important test of how Nigerian courts interpret the relationship between repealed statutes, savings clauses and constitutional protections in criminal proceedings.
Appeal Reduced to One Question
Summarizing his position, Chidera said the legal controversy surrounding the case can ultimately be reduced to a single question.
According to him, the issue is not whether the prosecution survived the repeal of the 2013 terrorism law, as most parties appear to agree that it did.
Rather, the question is whether the law relied upon to convict Kanu remained a valid written law in force at the time judgment was delivered.
“The case may have survived repeal,” he stated.
“But the constitutional question remains whether the law used for conviction also survived in a manner that satisfies Section 36(12) of the Constitution.”
As the appeal progresses, that question is expected to remain at the center of legal arguments before the appellate court, with both supporters and critics of the conviction closely watching the outcome.
0 Comments