Why Nnamdi Kanu’s Conviction Is Legally Unsustainable – Defence Counsel

The legal team representing the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has maintained that his recent conviction by a Federal High Court in Abuja “cannot stand in law,” alleging that the presiding judge, Justice James Omotosho, based his ruling on a law that has already been repealed.

Kanu was convicted last month on terrorism-related charges, but his lawyers argue that the judgment is fundamentally flawed because it relied on the provisions of the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 instead of the operative Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.

In a statement released on Thursday, the head of the global defence consortium, Njoku Jude Njoku, Esq., described the judgment as “judicial rascality taken too far,” asserting that the court disregarded clear legislative directives.

“A dead law cannot be used to try or convict any citizen. The National Assembly repealed the 2013 Act three years ago. What Justice Omotosho has done is to breathe life into a corpse,” Njoku said.

He pointed to Section 97 of the 2022 Act, which stipulates that “any investigation, trial or legal proceeding commenced under the repealed Act shall be continued and completed under the provisions of this Act.” According to him, the wording of the law leaves no room for interpretation.

“Section 97 is unambiguous. It states that the trial shall proceed under the new law — not may, not might. The judge had no authority to act as though the old law was still in force,” he insisted.

Njoku accused the trial court of misinterpreting Section 98(3), which preserves previous investigative actions but does not authorise future convictions under a repealed statute.

“Section 98(3) merely saves earlier investigative steps — arrests, charges filed, seized materials. It does not revive a dead law. No court, not even the Supreme Court, can achieve that,” he stated.

He further alleged that the court’s decision to rely on the repealed statute was intentional and driven by political considerations.

“What happened on 20th November was not a trial — it was a script. It was predetermined. The court chose convenience over law and politics over justice,” he claimed.

Njoku warned that allowing the judgment to stand would create a dangerous precedent for the country’s legal system.

“If this ruling is allowed to stand, then tomorrow any Nigerian can be convicted under a non-existent law. That is how tyranny starts,” he cautioned.

He urged Nigerians to familiarise themselves with the relevant legal provisions, asserting that public ignorance enables judicial abuse.

“Ignorance is the fuel of tyranny. Nigerians must read Section 97 and Section 98(3). A judiciary that upholds one part of the law and disregards another is not dispensing justice — it becomes a conspiracy against the people,” he said.

The defence team confirmed that an appeal has been filed and expressed optimism that the Court of Appeal will overturn the conviction.

“We trust the higher courts to rectify this embarrassing misapplication of the law. But even if they do not, history has already recorded what happened in broad daylight,” Njoku added.