Lawyer Challenges Legal Basis of Nnamdi Kanu’s Conviction, Questions Reliance on Repealed Terrorism Law

A legal practitioner, Christopher Chidera, has raised questions over the legal foundation of the conviction and life sentence handed to the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, by the Federal High Court in Abuja. Chidera, in a legal commentary, argued that Justice James Omotosho may have relied on provisions of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 in reaching the conviction, despite the legislation having been repealed. Kanu was convicted by Justice Omotosho on November 20, 2025, following his trial on terrorism-related charges. The court subsequently sentenced him to life imprisonment. The lawyer's argument centres on whether a person can legally be convicted under a criminal statute that was no longer in force when judgment was delivered. According to Chidera, the critical legal question is which specific legislation defined the alleged offences and prescribed the applicable penalties on the date Kanu was convicted. He contends that the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 and, therefore, questions whether provisions of the repealed legislation could lawfully form the basis of a conviction in 2025. The argument touches on Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and its punishment prescribed by written law. Kanu himself had previously challenged the validity of the charges against him because they were based on legislation he claimed had been repealed. During the proceedings, his defence also raised questions about the applicability of the 2013 terrorism legislation. The prosecution, however, opposed Kanu's position during the trial and maintained its case against him. Justice Omotosho proceeded with the trial and ultimately convicted Kanu on the terrorism-related charges. The controversy has since continued beyond the trial court, with Kanu's legal team challenging aspects of the judgment through the appellate process. Reports indicate that the appeal raises several grounds concerning the conviction and the legal basis of the proceedings. Chidera's latest intervention therefore adds to an ongoing legal debate over the interpretation of Nigeria's terrorism legislation, the effect of repealed statutes on pending criminal proceedings, and the constitutional requirement that criminal convictions be founded on applicable written law. The lawyer's position remains an argument in the ongoing legal controversy and does not, by itself, constitute a judicial determination that Justice Omotosho acted unlawfully. The final position on the issues raised will ultimately depend on the appellate courts' determination.