Defence Lawyer Declares Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial Invalid, Says Conviction Impossible Under Repealed Terrorism Law

 

The ongoing terrorism trial of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has come under renewed legal scrutiny following a strong argument by his defence team that the charges against him are unconstitutional and invalid. A legal expert, Christopher Chidera, who is a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, has asserted that Kanu cannot be convicted under a law that no longer exists in Nigeria’s legal framework.

The legal debate arises as the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, prepares to deliver judgment on November 20, 2025, after years of proceedings. Kanu’s legal team maintains that the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013, under which he was charged, was repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. Consequently, the lawyer insists that prosecuting or convicting anyone under a repealed statute is an exercise in futility and a breach of constitutional law.

According to Chidera, Nigerian courts have never upheld a criminal trial or conviction based on a repealed law, emphasizing that such actions are considered null and void. He explained that once a statute is repealed, it ceases to exist and cannot sustain any prosecution or conviction unless specifically saved by the repealing legislation. Even then, the saving clause only applies to truly pending cases and not to new or de novo proceedings.

Chidera noted that despite clear evidence of the repeal, Justice Omotosho has continued to preside over the case as though the old law were still valid. He described this as a fundamental legal error and a constitutional violation. “There can be no conviction without a written law in force at the time of trial,” he said, arguing that the court’s refusal to acknowledge the repeal amounts to judicial misconduct.

He cited several landmark decisions to support his argument, including Abacha v. State (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 437 and FRN v. Osahon (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 973) 361, both of which affirm that prosecutions under repealed laws cannot stand. “Repeal extinguishes offences; savings cannot breathe life into what is already dead,” Chidera emphasized.

The lawyer further referenced Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that no person shall be convicted of an offence not defined and in force at the time of trial. He also pointed to Section 122 of the Evidence Act, mandating courts to take judicial notice of repeals automatically. “Failure to do so,” he said, “is not just an oversight but a constitutional fraud.”

Chidera maintained that since Kanu’s fresh arraignment and retrial began in December 2023, the repealed Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013 was no longer valid law, making the entire trial unconstitutional. He argued that a retrial ordered after a repeal constitutes a new proceeding, and as such, the repealed law cannot be revived or applied.

“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu stands charged under a dead statute,” he asserted. “The repeal of that law took effect in May 2022. Therefore, any prosecution under it collapses automatically. Dead law means dead case.”

He concluded that continuing Kanu’s trial under a non-existent law is a violation of Nigeria’s supreme legal provisions. “Repeal kills prosecution totally, instantly, and irrevocably,” Chidera stated, insisting that the ongoing trial is a nullity and that any conviction that arises from it would be void from the outset.