How IPOB Leader Nnamdi Kanu Trapped Justice Omotosho With Repealed Terrorism Law Before Conviction –Lawyer

 According to the lawyer, Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 legislation required the court to transition the proceedings to the new law, but Justice Omotosho allegedly refused to apply those provisions.

Nigerian lawyer, Christopher Chidera, has described the conviction of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja as an unconstitutional nullity, arguing that the trial judge convicted him under a repealed terrorism law.

Chidera made the argument in a public briefing note dated November 2, 2026, titled ‘The Pro Se Legal Trap, Judicial Blindness, and the Constitutional Nullity of Justice Omotosho’s Conviction in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu’.

He argued that the trial court failed to comply with mandatory provisions of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 (TPPA), which replaced the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 under which Kanu's trial had commenced.

According to the lawyer, Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 legislation required the court to transition the proceedings to the new law, but Justice Omotosho allegedly refused to apply those provisions.

He maintained that the failure rendered the conviction legally defective and incapable of surviving appellate scrutiny.

Chidera said Kanu recognised the legal implications of the repeal and subsequently took control of his defence, representing himself in court (pro se) and challenging the legal basis of the charges.

He explained that Kanu's objection was anchored on 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 in a written law.

The lawyer particularly highlighted proceedings on November 4, 2025, when Kanu reportedly invoked the constitutional provision and asked the court to quash the trial on the grounds that the charges disclosed no offence under an extant law.

According to Chidera, Justice Omotosho responded by affirming the constitutional principle that a person cannot be convicted without a written law prescribing the offence.

He quoted the judge as saying: "Without a written law you cannot be convicted."

However, Chidera argued that the judge subsequently proceeded with the trial and conviction without addressing the implications of the repeal of the 2013 terrorism legislation.

He described the development as a major contradiction in the trial record, arguing that the judge acknowledged the constitutional requirement but failed to apply it to the proceedings before him.

“The depth of Kanu's legal ambush reached its peak on November 4, 2025,” the lawyer stated.

He added that Kanu had deliberately invoked Section 36(12) of the Constitution to challenge the legal foundation of the prosecution.

Chidera further argued that although Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act contained a savings provision preserving certain proceedings, it did not remove the obligation imposed by Sections 97 and 98(2) to transition the case to the new legislation.

He said the word "shall" in the relevant provisions imposed a mandatory duty on the trial court rather than leaving the transition to its discretion.

Lawyer Accuses Judge Of Ignoring Mandatory Legal Provisions

The lawyer also accused Justice Omotosho of allowing personal hostility and a determination to convict Kanu to influence his handling of the case.

He alleged that the judge dismissed Kanu's legal objections instead of examining the relevant statutory provisions and applying the principles established by the Supreme Court.

“Justice James Omotosho did not merely make a routine error in legal interpretation; he walked straight into Kanu’s calculated trap because he was entirely blinded by a pre-determined agenda,” Chidera alleged.

He further claimed that the judge's failure to apply the 2022 legislation amounted to a disregard of binding judicial principles governing jurisdiction and the application of subsisting laws.

Chidera maintained that the conviction could not stand because the court allegedly failed to establish that the offences for which Kanu was convicted were prosecuted under an applicable written law.

Lawyer Questions Delay In Appeal

The briefing note also questioned the progress of Kanu's appeal, with Chidera suggesting that the prosecution faces difficulties defending the conviction because of the legal objections raised during the trial.

He argued that the prosecution would struggle to justify a conviction allegedly based on a repealed statute.

“How does a state counsel write a legal brief defending a conviction under a statute that has been explicitly repealed and replaced by the National Assembly?” he asked.

The lawyer also argued that an appellate court could not simply overlook the trial record, which he said captured Kanu's objections and the judge's response.

He suggested that the delay in listing the appeal for hearing and the alleged absence of a substantive response from the prosecution reflected the difficulties confronting the government.

However, he acknowledged that the appeal would eventually have to be heard, insisting that the legal issues raised could not be avoided indefinitely.

Calls For Kanu's Release

Chidera described the conviction as an unconstitutional nullity, insisting that the alleged failure to comply with the mandatory transition provisions of the 2022 terrorism law undermined the entire judgment.

“The public record reveals a stark reality: Justice Omotosho’s judgment is an unconstitutional nullity,” he stated.

He added: “The government’s extreme reluctance to list the appeal for hearing or file a substantive response to the Appellant’s Brief speaks volumes. They cannot defend a conviction anchored on a repealed statute.”

Chidera maintained that Kanu should be released unconditionally if the legal defects he identified were upheld.