A member of the Kanu Global Legal Consortium, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has challenged the legal basis of Nnamdi Kanu’s conviction, arguing that his trial should have been conducted under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
Ifedi made the submission while speaking in honour of Kanu a day after his 59th birthday, raising questions over the legislation applicable to the proceedings.
He relied on Sections 36(6)(a) and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provide safeguards relating to criminal trials and require that offences and their penalties be established by written law.
According to Ifedi, the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 was repealed in May 2022, after which the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 became the applicable legislation.
He therefore questioned which written law was in force when Kanu was convicted on November 20, 2025.
Ifedi argued that the proceedings should have been migrated to the 2022 Act, rather than continuing under the repealed 2013 legislation.
He also cited Section 122 of the Evidence Act 2011, which requires courts to take judicial notice of Nigerian laws.
According to him, Kanu had asked the court to take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 Act, but Justice J.K. Omotosho, in his judgment, only “assume[d] without conceding” that the legislation had been repealed.
Ifedi further cited previous Supreme Court decisions, including Orugbo v. Una, Ogbomor v. The State, Nwankwoala v. FRN and A.G. Lagos v. Dosunmu, in support of his argument concerning proceedings conducted under repealed legislation.
He also referred to Sections 97 and 98(2) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, arguing that pending proceedings under the repealed 2013 Act were required to be migrated and continued under the 2022 legislation.
“The National Assembly did not leave room for judicial discretion,” Ifedi said.
He argued that the trial court did not migrate the proceedings, amend the charge or re-arraign Kanu under the 2022 Act.
Ifedi also questioned the application of Section 98(3), which he described as a savings provision, arguing that it did not permit a repealed law to continue governing a criminal conviction.
He said the validity of Kanu’s conviction would depend, among other issues, on the legislation under which he was convicted.
“Ogbomor v. The State does not ask how many witnesses were called, how loud the rhetoric was, or how thick the court files grew,” Ifedi said.
“It asks one lethal question: Was the law Justice Omotosho used to convict Kanu alive on the day of conviction?”
Ifedi maintained that the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 ceased to have effect on May 12, 2022, and argued that the 2022 Act should therefore have governed the proceedings.
