A legal analyst and public affairs commentator, Barrister Christopher Chidera, has identified what he described as “fatal jurisdictional errors” that render the conviction of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, leader, Nnamdi Kanu, legally unsustainable.
In a legal critique on Tuesday, Chidera argued that the Federal High Court committed two grave violations of Nigerian jurisprudence that no appellate court can overlook: relying on a repealed law and failing to take judicial notice of its repeal.
“No trial court, no matter how ambitious, can revive a dead law,” he said. “The Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013, under which Kanu was charged, was repealed by the National Assembly. A repealed law is dead. You cannot conduct a new trial on a dead statute.”
He further dismissed the government’s attempt to rely on Section 98(3) of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act (TPPA) 2022, insisting that a savings clause cannot resurrect a statute that the legislature has expressly abolished.
“Let no one deceive you,” he said. “Savings clauses preserve liabilities; they do not breathe life back into a repealed statute. Appellate courts have said this over and over again.”
Citing authorities such as Ojokolobo v Alamu and A.G. Lagos v Dosunmu, the analyst maintained that once a law is repealed, its prospective application dies with it. He insisted that no Nigerian court has ever permitted a fresh criminal trial under a repealed statute, adding that Justice Emeka Nwite lacked jurisdiction the moment he proceeded on the basis of the abolished law.
Chidera said the judge’s failure to take judicial notice of the repeal of the Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act was even more damaging.
“Every court must take judicial notice of the law as it exists — whether enacted or repealed. That is not optional. You don’t ‘assume’ whether a law is alive or dead,” he said.
He pointed to the judge’s own words — “assuming without conceding that the TPAA has been repealed” — as evidence that the court proceeded on a wrong premise.
“That phrase alone destroys the entire judgment,” he said. “A court cannot assume the law. It must know the law. Failure to take judicial notice is a jurisdiction-killing error. Everything built on that foundation collapses automatically.”
Referencing cases including NNPC v Fawehinmi and the Privy Council decision in Macfoy v UAC, he argued that proceedings based on a non-existent law are “incurably bad and void from the start.”
Chidera insisted that the issues raised are not technicalities but foundational principles that even a politically influenced appellate panel cannot override.
“Jurisdiction is the soul of adjudication. Once it is absent, the entire process becomes a nullity. Not even the Supreme Court can amend or salvage a judgment delivered without jurisdiction,” he said.
He also challenged government lawyers and commentators to produce any Nigerian appellate or Supreme Court decision that permits a criminal trial under a repealed statute.
“Ask anyone quoting Section 98(3) to show you one case — just one — where a court allowed a criminal trial under a repealed law,” he said.
“There is none. That tells you all you need to know about the limitations of the savings clause.”
According to him, Kanu’s conviction “cannot stand in law and will not survive appellate scrutiny,” regardless of political pressure.
