By CHARLES IWUOHA

Amid moves by leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, to halt the scheduled November 20, 2025 judgment in his terrorism trial, a legal expert has declared that the court cannot convict him under a repealed law.

Justice James Omotosho of the Abuja Federal High Court fixed the date to deliver judgment in the trial, which has lasted several years.

Kanu and his defence team have been arguing that the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013 under which he was charged had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition Act) 2022.

In a statement on Wednesday, Barrister Christopher Chidera, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, argued that it was wrong to prosecute Kanu under a repealed law and as a result, he can't be convicted based on a non-existent statute.

"Not one Nigerian court, from the Supreme Court to the High Court, has ever sustained a trial or conviction under a repealed statute. Every known attempt was quashed as a nullity," Chidera stressed.

He argued that "there can be no conviction without a written law in force at trial", and faulted the court for proceeding with the IPOB leader's prosecution despite what he described as glaring evidence that the law under which he was charged had been repealed.

Noting that the presiding judge, Justice James Omotosho, failed to provide an answer when Kanu asked why he is being prosecuted under a non-existent law, the lawyer declared: "Today, that question is answered — definitively, constitutionally, and jurisprudentially.

“There is no single instance in Nigeria since 1999 where a criminal trial, conviction, or plea was sustained under a repealed law. None exists. None can exist. A repealed criminal statute dies ab initio. It cannot sustain a trial, conviction, or plea unless explicitly saved by the repealing Act — and even then, only for truly ‘pending’ proceedings."

Chidera further argued that statutes such as the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act cannot override provisions of Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which forbid conviction for any offence not “defined and in force” at the time of trial.

"Under Section 122 of the Evidence Act, courts must judicially notice repeals. Failure to do so is not mere error — it is a fraud on the Constitution," Chidera asserted.

The Nnamdi Kanu defence team further observed that a sweeping search of Nigerian and global legal records shows no instances where a repealed law sustained a criminal trial, conviction, or plea.

Citing the case of Abacha v. State (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 437, the lawyer averred that, “Repeal extinguishes offences; savings cannot breathe life into what is already dead."

Also citing FRN v. Osahon (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 973) 361, he insisted: "No prosecution survives repeal; general savings cannot revive repealed offences. Charges are struck out; accused discharged."

Stressing that "offence not defined by extant law is unconstitutional," Chidera added: "In every case, repeal ended proceedings. Courts discharged accused persons, struck out charges, or voided convictions. No trial proceeded to valid conclusion under a repealed law — not once.

"No person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law in force at the time of trial. Once repealed, the law is no longer in force, any charge under it collapses ab initio."

Arguing that Section 6(1)(a) of the Interpretation Act cannot override the Constitution, the lawyer noted that by the provisions of Section 122 of the Evidence Act, courts must recognize repeals automatically.

In the same vein, he noted that ignorance of repeal voids jurisdiction, adding, "Records of proceedings show that till date Justice Omotosho is yet to take judicial notice of the repeal of Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013. A fatal error in law."

According to him, when an appellate court orders retrial after repeal, the new trial is a fresh proceeding, not a continuation, as the repealed law cannot revive the charge.

"Mazi Nnamdi Kanu stands charged under the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 (as amended 2013) — a law repealed by the TPPA 2022. The repeal took effect May 2022. The fresh arraignment and de novo trial commenced December 2023. Therefore, at the time of trial, the repealed statute was not in force. By constitutional compulsion: Dead law = Dead case. The trial is a nullity.

“Any plea or conviction thereunder is void ab initio," Chidera added.

Insisting that the court cannot convict Kanu, the lawyer declared, "Repeal kills prosecution — totally, instantly, and irrevocably. To proceed under a repealed statute is to conduct a trial without law, an act forbidden by Section 36(12) and condemned by precedent."