Lawyer challenges FG over law behind Kanu’s conviction

A lawyer, Barrister Christopher Chidera, has challenged the Federal Government to identify and defend the specific law under which the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, was convicted.
Chidera, a member of the Global Legal Consortium to Kanu, also backed the Okwu-Kanu family’s call for the immediate hearing of Kanu’s pending matters before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.
In a statement titled, “Show Him The Law: Nigeria Cannot Hide Behind Public Legal Illiteracy,” the lawyer questioned why the Federal Government was allegedly reluctant to have the matter determined by the appellate courts if it was confident in the legality of Kanu’s conviction.
He argued that the government should appear before the court and defend the conviction rather than rely on public misunderstanding of complex criminal-law principles.
“If the Federal Government believes that his conviction is legally sound, it should come to court and defend it,” Chidera said.
The lawyer based his argument on Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its penalty are defined in a written law.
Chidera questioned what he described as the extant written law governing the offence and punishment at the time Kanu was convicted on November 20, 2025.
He argued that if the law under which Kanu was convicted had been repealed, reliance on a savings provision could not, on its own, resolve the constitutional question.
“A savings clause is not a penal statute. It does not create the offence. It does not prescribe the punishment. It is not, by itself, the written criminal law contemplated by Section 36(12),” he said.
Chidera said the issue should be determined by the appellate courts, particularly the Court of Appeal, which he said would have to examine the statutory framework surrounding Kanu’s conviction.
He identified questions requiring judicial determination, including the law that was in force when the conviction was entered, the written law defining the offence and the written law prescribing its punishment.
The lawyer also referred to Section 97 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, which he said provides for proceedings commenced under repealed legislation to be continued and completed under the 2022 Act.
He maintained, however, that the existence of a savings provision should not end the constitutional inquiry.
“If the answer is that a savings provision preserved the old proceedings, the next question remains: Where is the extant written law satisfying Section 36(12) under which the conviction itself was entered?” he asked.
Chidera said the matter was a legal issue that should be determined by the courts rather than through public relations or political rhetoric.
He recalled that Kanu had raised similar questions during his trial, particularly through the demand, “Show me the law.”
According to him, Kanu is now effectively asking the Court of Appeal to determine the same issue.
The lawyer further rejected what he described as reliance on public legal ignorance to resolve a constitutionally significant question.
He urged the Federal Government to defend Kanu’s conviction before the appropriate courts by identifying the law and explaining the relevant statutory provisions.
One important editorial point: because this is a lawyer’s argument, keep the claims clearly attributed to Chidera throughout. Don’t write the constitutional interpretation as an established court finding unless you have the actual judgment or appellate ruling establishing it.