As the legal battle surrounding the conviction of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu moves before the Court of Appeal, a fresh public briefing by legal practitioner Christopher Chidera Esq. has brought renewed attention to what he describes as the central issue in the case.
In a detailed note titled “The Simple Question at the Heart of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal,” Chidera argued that much of the public discourse surrounding the appeal has focused on the wrong issues. According to him, the appeal is not fundamentally about whether the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 automatically terminated the proceedings against Kanu, nor is it primarily about the validity of the savings clause contained in the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
Instead, he maintained that the appeal is centered on a constitutional question that, in his view, remains unanswered: What written law in force on November 20, 2025, defined the offences and prescribed the punishments for which Nnamdi Kanu was convicted?
Lawyer Says Repeal of 2013 Terrorism Law Is Undisputed
According to Chidera, there is no controversy regarding the fact that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 was repealed by the National Assembly when it enacted the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
He noted that the repeal is a legislative fact that has never been challenged by any party involved in the matter.
The lawyer recalled that during proceedings before the Federal High Court, Kanu repeatedly raised the issue of the repeal and requested that the court formally take judicial notice of it under Section 122 of the Evidence Act.
According to him, the requests were made during hearings held on October 23 and November 4, 5, 7 and 20, 2025.
However, Chidera alleged that the trial court did not formally acknowledge the repeal through judicial notice, despite being invited to do so. Instead, he claimed the court addressed the issue on what he described as an “assuming without conceding” basis.
He argued that this approach prevented the court from fully addressing the legal implications of the repeal and identifying the precise law that remained operative at the time judgment was delivered.
Appeal Does Not Contest Savings Clause
Seeking to clarify what he described as widespread misconceptions, Chidera emphasized that Kanu’s appeal does not challenge the legal effect of the savings clause contained in Section 98(3) of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
According to him, the appeal accepts that the savings provision preserved ongoing proceedings, liabilities, rights and obligations that existed prior to the repeal of the earlier law.
He also referenced Section 6 of the Interpretation Act, which similarly protects existing legal proceedings from being extinguished solely because a statute has been repealed.
“The appeal is not arguing that the case ended when the old law was repealed,” he stated.
“Everyone accepts that the proceedings survived. The issue is entirely different.”
According to the lawyer, the real dispute concerns the legal basis upon which a conviction could be entered after the repeal had already taken effect.
Difference Between Saving a Case and Saving a Criminal Law
A significant part of Chidera’s argument focuses on the distinction between preserving legal proceedings and preserving a criminal statute itself.
He argued that while a savings clause may allow a prosecution to continue, it does not automatically transform itself into the substantive law defining criminal conduct.
According to him, a savings clause does not create offences, prescribe punishments or provide the legal ingredients necessary for a criminal conviction.
Rather, he described it as a procedural mechanism designed to ensure continuity during legislative transitions.
“A savings clause can keep a case alive,” he argued.
“It can preserve liabilities and obligations. But it is not itself the law that defines a criminal offence or sets out the punishment for that offence.”
For that reason, he contended that the existence of a savings clause does not answer the constitutional question raised in the appeal.
Reliance on Section 36(12) of the Constitution
At the core of Chidera’s argument is Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the punishment prescribed in a written law.
The lawyer argued that the constitutional requirement is clear and mandatory.
According to him, once the 2013 terrorism legislation was repealed, the court was required to identify the specific written law that remained in force and under which the conviction could validly be entered.
He maintained that the constitutional provision does not merely require the continuation of proceedings; it requires the existence of an enforceable written law defining the offence and punishment at the relevant time.
In his view, this distinction is critical because a repealed law cannot ordinarily be described as a written law in force on the date judgment was delivered.
Alleged Failure to Identify Applicable Law
Chidera further argued that although the judgment relied on the savings clause to justify the continuation of proceedings, it allegedly failed to clearly identify the offence-creating provisions that remained in force under the 2022 legislation.
According to him, this omission forms the basis of the constitutional challenge now before the Court of Appeal.
He stated that throughout the proceedings, Kanu repeatedly asked what he described as a simple legal question.
The question, according to Chidera, was not whether the case survived repeal, nor whether rights and liabilities could continue despite legislative changes.
Rather, it was a demand for the court to identify the specific law in force on the date of conviction that authorized the offences and punishments imposed.
Court of Appeal Asked to Resolve Key Issue
The lawyer said the burden now falls on the Court of Appeal to address the issue directly.
According to him, the appellate court must determine whether there was a valid written law in force on November 20, 2025, that defined the offences and prescribed the punishments upon which the conviction was based.
If such a law can be clearly identified, he argued, the constitutional challenge may fail.
However, if no such law is identified, the court would be required to examine the consequences under Section 36(12) of the Constitution.
He stressed that the outcome of the appeal could have implications extending beyond Kanu’s case, particularly regarding how Nigerian courts interpret repealed criminal statutes, savings clauses and constitutional safeguards relating to criminal convictions.
“Show Me the Law”
Summing up his position, Chidera said the appeal ultimately boils down to a single question that has remained at the center of Kanu’s legal challenge.
According to him, the issue is not whether the prosecution survived the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013.
Rather, it is whether the law relied upon for conviction remained legally operative after that repeal.
“The appeal is not about whether the case survived,” he concluded.
“The appeal is about whether the law used to convict survived. The question remains: What written law in force on November 20, 2025, authorized the conviction?”
With arguments now before the Court of Appeal, legal observers are expected to closely watch how the court addresses what Chidera describes as one of the most fundamental constitutional questions arising from the case.