The Simple Question at the Heart of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal
Abuja, Nigeria — A public briefing note released by legal commentator Christopher Chidera has outlined what he describes as the central issue in the appeal filed by detained IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu.
According to the briefing, the core argument before the Court of Appeal is not whether Kanu's case survived the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, but whether there was a valid written law in force at the time of his conviction that defined the offences and prescribed the corresponding punishments.
Repeal of the 2013 Terrorism Law
The briefing notes that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 was repealed and replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
Chidera stated that this repeal is not in dispute. However, he argued that during proceedings leading to Kanu's conviction on November 20, 2025, the trial court allegedly declined to formally take judicial notice of the repeal despite repeated submissions by the defendant.
According to the briefing, Kanu raised the issue on several occasions, including October 23 and November 4, 5, 7, and 20, 2025, urging the court to consider the legal implications of the repeal under the provisions of the Evidence Act.
Savings Clause and Continuation of Proceedings
The document acknowledged that Section 98(3) of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 contains a savings clause that preserves ongoing proceedings, rights, obligations, and liabilities despite the repeal of the earlier law.
Chidera maintained that Kanu's appeal does not challenge the existence of the savings clause or the continuation of the proceedings.
Instead, he argued that while such a provision allows an existing case to continue, it does not itself create offences or prescribe punishments.
Constitutional Question Raised
The briefing places significant emphasis on Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its punishment are defined in a written law.
According to Chidera, the fundamental question is whether there was a written law in force on the date of conviction that specifically defined the offences for which Kanu was convicted and prescribed the applicable penalties.
He contended that although a savings clause may preserve legal proceedings, it does not automatically transform a repealed statute into an active penal law.
Judicial Notice Argument
The briefing further argued that the trial court had a legal duty under Section 122 of the Evidence Act to take judicial notice of laws in force in Nigeria, including the repeal of existing statutes.
It alleged that the court did not fully address this issue and instead proceeded on what was described as an "assuming without conceding" basis.
Issue Before the Court of Appeal
According to the document, the Court of Appeal is now expected to determine whether there was a valid written law in force on November 20, 2025, that legally supported Kanu's conviction.
The briefing stated that if such a law is clearly identified, the conviction may be upheld on that basis. However, if no such law can be established, it argued that constitutional questions regarding the validity of the conviction would arise.
Conclusion
Chidera concluded that the appeal is not focused on whether Kanu's case survived the repeal of the 2013 terrorism law, but rather whether the legal basis for conviction remained in force at the time judgment was delivered.
He summarized the argument with a single question which, according to the briefing, remains central to the appeal:
"What written law in force on November 20, 2025, defined the offences and prescribed the punishments for which Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was convicted?"
Post a Comment