Fresh legal arguments have been advanced in the appeal filed by the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, with a legal practitioner, Christopher Chidera Esq., insisting that the controversy surrounding the case has been misunderstood by many observers.
According to the lawyer, the most important issue before the Court of Appeal is neither the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 nor the operation of the savings clause contained in the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022. Rather, he argues that the appeal revolves around a simple constitutional question: What law in force on the date of conviction authorized the judgment entered against Kanu?
In a public briefing note entitled “The Simple Question at the Heart of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal,” Chidera outlined what he described as the legal foundation of the appeal and why he believes the Court of Appeal will be required to address an issue that was allegedly left unresolved during proceedings before the Federal High Court.
Repeal of the 2013 Act Not in Dispute
The lawyer began by emphasizing that there is no disagreement over the fact that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 was repealed by the National Assembly following the enactment of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
He noted that this legislative development is a matter of public record and has never been disputed by either side in the proceedings.
According to him, throughout the trial, Kanu repeatedly drew the court’s attention to the repeal and urged the court to formally acknowledge it under the provisions of Section 122 of the Evidence Act.
Chidera stated that the issue was raised on several occasions, including October 23 and November 4, 5, 7 and 20, 2025.
He, however, alleged that the trial court did not formally take judicial notice of the repeal despite being invited to do so.
Instead, he claimed that the court approached the matter on an “assuming without conceding” basis, which, in his view, left unresolved the critical question of which law was actually in force at the time of conviction.
Savings Clause Preserved Proceedings
Addressing a major point of public debate, Chidera acknowledged that the 2022 terrorism law contains a savings provision designed to preserve ongoing legal actions despite the repeal of the earlier legislation.
He said the appeal does not challenge the validity of that provision.
According to him, Section 98(3) of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022, alongside Section 6 of the Interpretation Act, clearly protects pending proceedings, accrued rights, liabilities and obligations from being automatically extinguished when a law is repealed.
As a result, he argued that there is no dispute over whether the prosecution itself could continue after the repeal of the 2013 Act.
“The case survived,” he stated.
“The appeal accepts that the proceedings continued lawfully. That is not the issue before the Court of Appeal.”
Distinction Between Continuation of Proceedings and Basis for Conviction
The lawyer, however, maintained that preserving a case is different from identifying the law under which a conviction may be entered.
He argued that while a savings clause can keep a prosecution alive, it does not itself define criminal offences or prescribe criminal penalties.
According to him, this distinction is crucial because criminal convictions must rest on a valid and existing written law.
“A savings clause preserves proceedings,” he explained.
“It does not create offences. It does not prescribe punishment. It does not become the criminal law itself.”
He argued that the legal effect of a savings clause should not be confused with the constitutional requirement that offences and punishments must be contained in a written law that is in force.
Reliance on Constitutional Provisions
Chidera anchored his argument on Section 36(12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
The constitutional provision states that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and its punishment prescribed in a written law.
According to him, the phrase “written law” carries significant constitutional weight because it requires courts to identify the legal instrument that was in force at the time a conviction was entered.
He argued that since the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 had already been repealed by November 20, 2025, the date on which Kanu was convicted, the court was required to identify another written law in force that defined the offences and prescribed the punishments imposed.
The lawyer maintained that this exercise was never properly undertaken.
Alleged Duty of Judicial Notice
Another key aspect of Chidera’s argument concerns the doctrine of judicial notice.
He contended that Section 122 of the Evidence Act imposes a mandatory obligation on Nigerian courts to recognize laws in force within the country, including legislative amendments and repeals.
According to him, because the repeal of the 2013 terrorism law was a matter of legislation passed by the National Assembly, the court was under a legal duty to acknowledge and evaluate its implications.
He argued that the failure to expressly undertake that exercise left a gap in the reasoning supporting the conviction.
The Question He Says Remains Unanswered
Throughout the briefing, Chidera repeatedly returned to what he described as the central issue in the appeal.
According to him, Kanu’s challenge has always been straightforward.
He said the question was never whether the prosecution could continue after repeal, nor whether liabilities arising under the repealed law could survive.
Instead, the question, he argued, is whether there was a specific written law in force on November 20, 2025, that authorized the offences and punishments relied upon by the trial court.
He further contended that the judgment relied heavily on the savings clause but did not expressly identify corresponding offence-creating provisions in the 2022 terrorism legislation.
As a result, he said the legal basis for the conviction remains a matter that requires determination by the appellate court.
Court of Appeal Expected to Resolve Constitutional Issue
Looking ahead, Chidera stated that the Court of Appeal now has the responsibility of addressing the issue directly.
According to him, the appellate court must determine whether a written law in force on the date of conviction clearly defined the offences and prescribed the penalties imposed on Kanu.
He argued that if such a law is identified, the conviction may stand.
However, if no such law can be established, he believes the court will be required to examine the constitutional implications of Section 36(12).
“The Court of Appeal must answer the question that was left unresolved,” he said.
“What written law in force on November 20, 2025, authorized the conviction?”
Conclusion
Chidera concluded that much of the public debate surrounding the case has focused on issues that are not central to the appeal.
According to him, the real dispute is not whether the repeal of the 2013 terrorism law ended the prosecution, but whether the legal foundation upon which the conviction rests remained valid after that repeal.
He maintained that the appellate court’s answer to that question could ultimately determine the fate of Kanu’s conviction and shape future judicial interpretation of constitutional safeguards governing criminal trials in Nigeria.
Post a Comment