The legal team representing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has strongly criticised the recent judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered by Justice James Omotosho. The team described the ruling as “void, unconstitutional and fundamentally defective,” insisting that the conviction cannot stand under Nigerian law.
Justice Omotosho had, on 20 November 2025, convicted Kanu on seven counts relating to terrorism and leadership of a proscribed organisation. This decision came despite a 2023 judgment of the Enugu State High Court which nullified the proscription of IPOB—a judgment that remains unchallenged.
In a statement signed by Njoku Jude Njoku, Esq., the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium argued that the court’s reliance on the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 rendered the entire decision legally unsustainable. Section 104 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022 expressly repealed the 2013 statute.
“A repealed law is a dead law. No court can breathe life into it,” the consortium stated, insisting that convicting an individual under such a statute is a “legal impossibility.”
The defence team invoked Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates that an offence and its punishment must be contained in a written law currently in force. As the 2013 law had ceased to exist as at the date of conviction, they argued that the judgment was void ab initio.
Savings Clause Argument Dismissed
The Federal Government’s attempt to rely on transitional or savings provisions in the 2022 Act was described as “misconceived.” The defence insisted that such clauses protect existing proceedings—not fresh charges.
They further noted that Kanu had been discharged by the Court of Appeal on 13 October 2022. Consequently, any subsequent process amounted to a new trial, which cannot rely on repealed provisions.
Material Changes Under the 2022 TPPA
According to the statement, the operative 2022 terrorism legislation significantly redefines terrorism to require acts involving violence, grievous harm, or serious intimidation of the public. It specifically excludes non-violent political activity, advocacy, and dissent.
The consortium argued that the allegations against Kanu—centred on speeches and advocacy—fall outside the scope of the current definition.
They accused the trial court of failing to apply the more favourable law as required by Section 36(8) of the Constitution, a principle that mandates courts to adopt the lighter regime where criminal statutes change.
Constitutional and Jurisdictional Concerns
The group further contended that the ruling violated:
Section 1(3) – Supremacy of the Constitution
Section 36(8) – Prohibition against retrospective punishment
Section 36(9) – Double jeopardy
Section 36(12) – Requirement of a valid written law
They described the judgment as one lacking jurisdiction and therefore “incapable of surviving appellate scrutiny.”
Appeal in Motion
The consortium confirmed that they are proceeding immediately to the Court of Appeal, expressing confidence that the decision will be overturned.
“This judgment cannot stand. The conviction rests on a repealed statute and offends settled constitutional principles,” the statement concluded.
The defence maintains that the appellate court will restore legality by setting aside what they consider a fundamentally flawed trial.
