A legal practitioner, Christopher Chidera, has raised fresh legal questions over the conviction of Nnamdi Kanu, arguing that the judgment may have relied on provisions of a terrorism law that had already been repealed.
Chidera, a member of the Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium, made the submission in a legal commentary reviewing the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho on November 20, 2025.
At the centre of his argument is Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that no person can be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and its penalty prescribed by a written law.
The lawyer argued that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which he said was relied upon in the conviction, was repealed on May 12, 2022, following the enactment of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2022.
He therefore questioned whether provisions of the repealed legislation could legally form the basis of Kanu’s conviction.
Chidera also challenged the interpretation of Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act, which he said was relied upon in dealing with pending proceedings.
He argued that the provision was a savings clause intended to preserve pending proceedings and accrued liabilities, rather than revive legislation that had already been repealed.
The lawyer said the distinction was important because, in his view, preserving a prosecution does not amount to restoring the substantive offences and penalties contained in the repealed law.
He also raised questions about whether Kanu had been given adequate opportunity to address the legal effect of Section 98(3) before judgment.
Chidera linked this to the constitutional guarantees of fair hearing under Sections 36(1) and 36(6), arguing that an accused person should be allowed to respond to the legal provisions upon which a conviction is ultimately based.
He further cited the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Egigia, which he said reaffirmed that a repealed law ceases to have legal life.
The lawyer is therefore urging the Court of Appeal to examine the statutory foundation of Kanu’s conviction, particularly the relationship between the repealed 2013 law, the 2022 Terrorism Prevention Act and the constitutional requirements for criminal convictions.
He stressed that his position is an argument for consideration on appeal and that the appellate court would ultimately determine whether the issues raised affect the validity of the conviction.
Chidera maintained that the seriousness of the allegations against Kanu does not remove the State’s obligation to comply with constitutional safeguards and applicable criminal law.
