By CHARLES IWUOHA

A lawyer, Barrister Christopher Chidera, has declared that the Abuja Federal High Court judgment which convicted leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, will not survive scrutiny at the Court of Appeal, regardless of political instruction.

Kanu was convicted for terrorism and sentenced to life imprisonment by the court presided by Justice James Omotosho on November 20, 2025. He has since been moved to the Sokoto Correctional Centre, where he is serving the life sentence.

Shortly after his conviction, the IPOB leader's lawyers had vowed to appeal the judgment.

In a statement on Thursday, Chidera hinged the assertion that the conviction cannot stand at the Court of Appeal on Kanu and his defence team's argument that the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, TPAA, 2013, under which the IPOB leader was charged, had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition Act) 2022.

The lawyer also noted that the trial judge, Justice Omotosho's alleged failure to take judicial notice of the repeal of the law.

"There are two immovable pillars of Nigerian jurisprudence that no trial court — no matter how ambitious — can wish away: (1) the effect of repeal on criminal statutes, and (2) the mandatory duty to take judicial notice of laws and official acts," Chidera said, arguing that the judge violated both in Kanu's trial.

"Because these violations are jurisdictional, they sink his no-case ruling and his final judgment beyond rescue, even by the most compromised panel sitting on appeal.

"The government may rely on politics, optics, and raw willpower, but the law is brutally simple - TPAA is dead. No savings clause can resurrect it. Justice Omotosho failed to take judicial notice of its death. All proceedings conducted upon that dead law are void. This is not a technicality. It is the rule of law.

"And it is why the Court of Appeal — regardless of political instructions from above — will be forced to confront the irrefutable reality that Justice Omotosho lacked jurisdiction from the first day he sat on the matter.

"Don't let government sponsored propaganda noise deceive you. Ask anybody quoting the savings clause, Section 98(3) TPPA, to show you any Appeal or Supreme Court judgment that ever endorsed the conduct of a trial under a repealed law. There is none!"

Stressing that savings clauses do not resurrect repealed laws, Chidera faulted what he described as attempts by Nigerian government officials to justify Kanu's conviction with a repealed statute.

He said: "For months, Nigerian officials and their courtroom surrogates have attempted to twist Section 98(3) of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022 (TPPA) into a magic wand capable of reviving a repealed statute — the Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act (TPAA) 2013.

"This is legally impossible. Every appellate court that has ever spoken on the subject — in Nigeria and in the Commonwealth — has consistently held that a savings clause preserves liabilities; it does not resurrect a repealed statute."

The lawyer cited several legal authorities to justify his argument. "Ojokolobo v Alamu (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.61) 377 – The Supreme Court held that upon repeal, the former statute “is dead for all purposes except to the extent that accrued rights or liabilities under it are saved".

"A.G. Lagos State v Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.111) 552 – Savings clauses operate to preserve “past transactions, rights and obligations,” not to continue the existence of the repealed law. Uwaifo v A.G. Bendel State (1983) 14 NSCC 57 – The court struck down attempts to “revive the authority” of a repealed statute for future actions. Repeal terminates prospective application.

"Mustapha v Governor of Lagos State (2020) LPELR-49784 (CA) – A savings clause “does not and cannot breathe life into a law that has ceased to exist.” Chief Ogbunyiya v Okudo (1979) 6–9 SC 32 – A repealed law “remains dead and of no effect except for accrued or completed matters". R v Burke (1913) 12 CLR 669 (High Court of Australia) – Across common-law jurisdictions, savings clauses are universally interpreted to prevent voids — not to permit new trials under dead legislation."

These authorities destroy the government’s strategy completely as a savings clause cannot authorise a fresh trial under a repealed statute, Chidera noted, further citing Okumagba v Egbe (1965) NMLR 62 – which held that once a law is repealed, no new proceedings can be founded upon it.

According to him, in Nnamdi Kanu’s case, the alleged offences were framed exclusively under the TPAA — a law the National Assembly intentionally killed. “The transitional clause in Section 97 TPPA preserves only liabilities, not the instrument of trial. Section 98(3) cannot command a court to close its eyes to a repeal,” he added.

Chidera described the judge's alleged failure to take judicial notice of the repeal as a jurisdiction-killing error.

"Because he refused to acknowledge a repeal that is public, enacted, gazetted, and judicially noticed across Nigerian courts, Omotosho’s no-case ruling and final conviction are void ab initio," he said, citing Onochie v Odogwu which held that proceedings founded on an incorrect assumption of law must be set aside.

The lawyer further cited NNPC v Fawehinmi (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt.559) 598 – which held that courts must take judicial notice of all laws, repeal or amendment inclusive, as failure to do so is a “grave error.”

He also cited A.G. Abia v A.G. Federation (2005) 17 NWLR (Pt.955) 490 – which stipulated that courts must apply extant law as it exists, not as the parties imagine it to be, as well as Onochie v Odogwu (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt.975) 65 - which held that failure to take judicial notice of a statutory instrument voids the entire decision.

"No appellate court — not even one eager to “sustain a veneer of conviction” — can cure a jurisdictional nullity. They can only acknowledge it," he declared.

Update news