[APPEAL BATTLE INTENSIFIES]: Lawyer Says Court of Appeal Must Answer Critical Question on Nnamdi Kanu’s Conviction

As legal proceedings surrounding the conviction of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu continue to generate nationwide debate, a constitutional argument advanced by legal practitioner Christopher Chidera Esq. has placed renewed focus on what he describes as the most important issue before the Court of Appeal.

In a public briefing note released to address growing public interest in the appeal, Chidera argued that discussions surrounding the case have largely been dominated by arguments over the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 and the effect of the savings clause contained in the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.

However, according to him, those issues are not the real battleground in the appeal.

The lawyer maintained that the central question before the appellate court is far simpler but potentially more significant: whether there was a written law in force on November 20, 2025, that defined the offences for which Kanu was convicted and prescribed the punishments imposed by the trial court.

Lawyer Says Repeal of Terrorism Law Is Not Controversial

Chidera noted that the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 is an established legislative fact that has never been disputed.

According to him, the National Assembly formally repealed the 2013 legislation through the enactment of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.

He stated that throughout the trial proceedings, Kanu repeatedly called attention to this development and urged the court to formally acknowledge it through judicial notice.

The lawyer recalled that the issue was allegedly raised before the trial court on several occasions, including October 23 and November 4, 5, 7 and 20, 2025.

According to him, Kanu relied on Section 122 of the Evidence Act, which requires courts to take judicial notice of laws in force within Nigeria without requiring additional evidence from the parties.

Despite this, Chidera alleged that the court did not formally undertake the judicial-notice exercise regarding the repeal and instead adopted what he described as an “assuming without conceding” approach.

He argued that this left unresolved the question of what legal framework governed the conviction at the time judgment was delivered.

Appeal Not Seeking Collapse of Proceedings

Addressing one of the most common assumptions surrounding the case, Chidera stressed that the appeal is not built on the argument that the repeal of the 2013 law automatically terminated the prosecution.

According to him, Kanu’s appeal accepts that the proceedings could lawfully continue under the savings provisions contained in the 2022 Act.

He pointed specifically to Section 98(3) of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 and Section 6 of the Interpretation Act, both of which preserve ongoing proceedings, accrued liabilities, rights and obligations despite the repeal of earlier legislation.

The lawyer stated that there is therefore no disagreement over the legal principle that pending cases can survive legislative changes.

“The continuation of the proceedings is not the issue in dispute,” he said.

“The appeal accepts that the case remained alive after repeal.”

Distinction Between a Savings Clause and a Criminal Statute

A major pillar of Chidera’s argument is the distinction he draws between preserving a legal proceeding and preserving the substantive criminal law upon which a conviction is based.

According to him, a savings clause functions as a transitional provision intended to prevent legal uncertainty following the repeal or amendment of legislation.

However, he argued that such a clause cannot itself serve as the law creating criminal offences or prescribing penalties.

He maintained that while a savings clause may preserve liabilities and allow proceedings to continue, it does not contain the substantive ingredients required by the Constitution for a criminal conviction.

“A savings clause can save a case,” he argued.

“It can preserve rights and obligations. But it does not define an offence and it does not prescribe punishment.”

According to him, that distinction is crucial because criminal convictions must rest upon a valid written law and not merely upon procedural provisions preserving ongoing proceedings.

Constitutional Safeguard Under Section 36(12)

The lawyer anchored his position on Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the punishment prescribed in a written law.

According to Chidera, the constitutional provision requires courts to identify a specific written law that was operative at the time a conviction was entered.

He argued that because the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 had already been repealed before November 20, 2025, the trial court was under a constitutional obligation to identify the law that remained in force and authorized the conviction.

In his view, the constitutional requirement cannot be satisfied merely by demonstrating that the proceedings survived repeal.

Instead, he argued that the court must point to the precise legal provisions that defined the offences and prescribed the penalties imposed on the defendant.

Alleged Failure to Answer a Simple Question

Throughout the briefing, Chidera repeatedly emphasized what he described as the simplicity of the issue raised by Kanu.

According to him, Kanu was not asking the court to explain why the case continued after repeal.

Neither was he challenging the existence of the savings clause.

Rather, the lawyer said Kanu consistently demanded an answer to a straightforward question: “What written law in force on November 20, 2025, authorized my conviction?”

He argued that despite extensive discussions regarding repeal and transitional provisions, that specific question was never directly answered in the judgment.

According to him, the court relied on the savings clause to justify the continuation of proceedings but did not clearly identify the offence-creating provisions of the law that remained operative at the time of conviction.

Court of Appeal Expected to Determine Constitutional Validity

Chidera said the responsibility now falls on the Court of Appeal to determine whether the constitutional requirements of Section 36(12) were satisfied.

According to him, the appellate court must identify the written law that was in force on November 20, 2025, and determine whether it defined the offences and prescribed the punishments for which Kanu was convicted.

If the court identifies such a law, he said, it may conclude that the conviction was constitutionally valid.

However, if no such law can be clearly established, he argued that the court will have to confront the constitutional implications arising from the absence of a written law in force at the relevant time.

Wider Implications Beyond Kanu’s Case

Legal observers note that the issues raised in the appeal may have implications beyond the case itself.

The outcome could provide judicial guidance on how courts should treat repealed criminal statutes, interpret savings clauses and apply constitutional safeguards relating to criminal convictions.

For Chidera, however, the matter ultimately comes down to one issue.

“The debate is not whether the case survived repeal,” he stated.

“The debate is whether the law used to convict survived repeal in a manner that satisfies the Constitution.”

As the appeal moves forward, that question is expected to remain at the center of legal arguments and public discussions surrounding one of Nigeria’s most closely watched cases.