US Foundation Offers $10,000 To Challenge Legal Basis Of Kanu’s Conviction

 

US Foundation Offers $10,000 To Challenge Legal Basis Of Kanu’s Conviction

Rising Sun Foundation USA has offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who produces a verifiable Nigerian judicial precedent upholding a criminal conviction based on a statute that had been repealed before the conviction was entered.

The foundation announced the challenge on Wednesday in a statement signed by its chair, Dr Maxwell Dede, questioning the legal basis of the conviction of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, by the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Kanu was convicted on November 20, 2025, by Justice James Omotosho on seven counts, according to the statement.Shop African Art

The foundation alleged that the conviction was based on the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, which it said had been repealed before the judgment was delivered.

“This challenge is issued for one clear reason,” the foundation said, arguing that the conviction raised constitutional questions under Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution.

The provision states that a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and its penalty prescribed in a written law.

 

“Section 36(12) is absolute: no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law in force. A repealed statute is not a written law in force,” the foundation stated.

Rising Sun Foundation said the $10,000 reward would be paid into any bank account worldwide within seven working days after verification of evidence submitted in response to the challenge.

The organisation directed the challenge to Justice Omotosho, legal practitioners, academics, jurists and legal institutions in Nigeria and other countries.

It called on them to produce a judicial decision that met its stated criteria.

“Produce one verifiable Nigerian judicial precedent in which a court lawfully entered a conviction founded on a statute that had already been repealed at the time of conviction,” the statement said.Buy Maps

 

The foundation cited the case of Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961), arguing that the decision established the principle that criminal liability must be based on an offence recognised by written law.

It also referenced Temple Nwankwoala v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2018), quoting a statement attributed to Justice Rhodes-Vivour.

“A trial conducted under a law that has been repealed, no matter how well conducted and decided is a nullity,” the foundation quoted the judge as saying.

The organisation further cited the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Egigia (2024), LPELR-62009(SC), which it said was quoted by Justice Omotosho on page 72 of his November 20, 2025 judgment.

The passage reproduced in the foundation’s statement reads: “The law is settled that a repealed law no more has legal life, thus, it cannot be cited as if it still exists. If it must be cited at all, it must be cited as a repealed law, which has no life to influence an argument. A repealed law cannot be the basis for any comparison with existing law. It cannot be quoted side by side an existing law as learned advocate did.”

The foundation argued that the passage raised questions about the legal basis of Kanu’s conviction, given its allegation that the judgment relied on the repealed 2013 terrorism legislation.

 

It said the issue could not be resolved by relying on cases in which courts corrected defective statutory citations in charge sheets while applying laws that remained in force.

“The question is whether any Nigerian court has ever upheld a conviction whose actual legal foundation was a statute that had genuinely been repealed,” the statement said.

It also referred to Ogbomor v. State (1985) and Boniface Adonike v. State (2015), arguing that the cases did not establish a precedent for upholding a conviction founded on a repealed statute because, according to the organisation, the convictions in those cases were entered under laws that remained in force.

Rising Sun Foundation also addressed the possibility that a statutory savings provision could preserve criminal proceedings or liability following the repeal of a law.

“If the argument is raised that a savings provision preserved the proceedings or liability, those relying on that argument must demonstrate how that transitional clause lawfully supplies the written-law foundation required by Section 36(12) of the Constitution for the offences and penalties imposed at conviction,” the statement said.

The foundation maintained that the existence of a general savings clause would not, by itself, settle the constitutional question it raised.

“Merely pointing to the existence of a general savings clause does not automatically convert a repealed penal statute into an operative written law in force,” it added.

The organisation called on the legal community either to produce a qualifying judicial precedent or to demonstrate the statutory and constitutional provisions that permitted Kanu’s conviction to be entered under the circumstances it described.

“Produce the precedent, or demonstrate the actual statutory and constitutional foundation that lawfully permitted this conviction,” the statement said.

“The offer of $10,000 stands open and unconditional,” it added.

The foundation said the absence of a response would not determine the outcome of Kanu’s appeal, while maintaining that the challenge would remain unanswered if no qualifying precedent was produced.

“Silence will not determine the appeal, but the failure to produce a qualifying precedent will establish that no such judicial authority has been produced in response to this challenge,” the statement said.