Why FG Cannot Defend Kanu’s Conviction On Appeal – Lawyer

 

Why FG Cannot Defend Kanu’s Conviction On Appeal – Lawyer

A lawyer representing the legal interests of the convicted leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, Christopher Chidera, has argued that the Federal Government may struggle to defend his conviction on appeal because the trial court allegedly relied on a repealed terrorism law.

Chidera made the argument in a public briefing on Wednesday where he questioned the legal basis of the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court on November 20, 2025, arguing that the trial court failed to comply with mandatory provisions of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 (TPPA).

According to the lawyer, Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act required the transition of Kanu’s trial from the repealed Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 to the 2022 legislation.

He maintained that the failure to effect the transition raised fundamental questions about the validity of the proceedings and the subsequent conviction.

Chidera argued that Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution prohibits the conviction of any person for an offence unless the offence and its penalty are prescribed in a written law.

He said the constitutional provision was central to Kanu’s challenge to the trial proceedings, insisting that a repealed statute could not provide the legal foundation for a conviction.

 

The lawyer also referred to Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act, which he described as a savings provision that preserved existing proceedings, but argued that it did not remove the obligation imposed by Sections 97 and 98(2) to transition the case to the new legislation.

He maintained that the use of the word “shall” in the relevant provisions established a mandatory requirement rather than an optional procedure.

Chidera further alleged that Kanu personally drew the trial court’s attention to the constitutional and statutory issues after taking control of his defence.

According to him, Kanu invoked Section 36(12) during proceedings on November 4, 2025, and urged the court to quash the trial on the grounds that the charges did not disclose an offence under an extant written law.

The lawyer recalled that Justice Omotosho responded during the proceedings that “without a written law you cannot be convicted.

He argued that the judge’s response was significant because the court subsequently proceeded to convict Kanu despite the defendant’s objection concerning the applicability of the repealed legislation.

 

Chidera described the development as a fundamental contradiction in the trial court’s handling of the case, arguing that the proceedings exposed the legal weakness of the eventual judgment.

He said the trial record would be central to the appeal because it allegedly documented Kanu’s objections to the application of the 2013 legislation and the court’s response.

The lawyer also questioned the Federal Government’s ability to defend the conviction before the appellate court.

He argued that the prosecution would face difficulties explaining how a conviction could stand if the trial court failed to comply with the applicable transition provisions of the 2022 Act.

“How does a state counsel write a legal brief defending a conviction under a statute that has been explicitly repealed and replaced by the National Assembly?” he asked.

 

Chidera also argued that an appellate court could not simply overlook what he described as the trial court’s failure to apply mandatory statutory provisions.

The lawyer said he expected the appeal to be listed for hearing, adding that the legal issues raised by Kanu could not remain unresolved indefinitely.

He stated that the matter must eventually be heard or Kanu released unconditionally, maintaining that the conviction could not survive judicial scrutiny if the alleged statutory violations were established.

Chidera also criticised what he described as the trial judge’s handling of Kanu’s objections, alleging that the court failed to give adequate consideration to the relevant provisions of the 2022 Act.

He maintained that the alleged failure to comply with the law, rather than the manner in which Kanu conducted his defence, was the central issue requiring determination by the appellate court.

The lawyer said that the conviction was unconstitutional and should be set aside, insisting that the provisions of the Constitution and the applicable terrorism legislation must guide the determination of the appeal.