Kanu’s conviction, a legal nullity, says constitutional lawyer

Kanu’s conviction, a legal nullity, says constitutional lawyer

Steve Oko

A constitutional lawyer, Christopher Chidera, has dismissed the conviction of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPoB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, as a  legal nullity built on non-existent law.

The right activist stated this in a statement titled:” The Construction is the Supreme Law”.

He accused Justice Omotosho of breaching the Law by convicting an accused based on a law that had since been repealed.

The legal expert argued that “Nigeria cannot claim to be a constitutional democracy while its courts attempt to convict a citizen under laws that do not exist.”

He said:”This is not advocacy. This is not interpretation. This is not politics. This is the plain truth of the law.

“Counts 1–6 Are Anchored on a Repealed Law. The prosecution built Counts 1–6 on the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 — a statute that has been repealed and is no longer part of Nigeria’s criminal law.

“Section 36(12) of the Constitution is unequivocal when it said that:’A person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined in a written law in force at the time.”

He further argued that:A repealed law is not a “written law in force”, adding that

“A conviction under a repealed law is void.”

“There is no exception. There is no judicial creativity that can cure repeal”, he declared.

The statement further said:”Count 7 Is Based on a Non-Existent Statute

Count 7 claims reliance on the so-called “Criminal Code Act Cap C45.”

There is no such Act in Nigeria’s statute book. It is a legal ghost — a fiction.

“The Supreme Court of Nigeria itself held that Count 7 was defective and ordered it to be corrected.

Neither the prosecution nor the trial court complied.

“A court cannot invent jurisdiction over an offence that does not exist in any statute.

A judge cannot rewrite Nigeria’s laws from the bench.

“Disobedience to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court gave a clear directive: correct Count 7.

“The order was ignored.

In any constitutional democracy, a lower court cannot sit in open defiance of the highest court. This is not just procedural failure — it is a direct assault on the rule of law.

“The Court Refused to Take Judicial Notice of Repeal

Section 122 of the Evidence Act makes repeal of public statutes a matter for mandatory judicial notice.

“Repeated requests to the trial court to take notice were refused. A judge who refuses to acknowledge the very existence of the laws he swore to uphold has abandoned the judicial oath he took under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

“Any Post-Trial Attempt to “Rewrite” the Charges Is Fraud If, after the fact, anyone attempts: to smuggle in a new statute,

to change the situs of the alleged offence, or to “interpret” the charge into existence, that will not be law — it will be fraud.

“Charges cannot be amended by written address. Situs cannot be invented by affidavit. A conviction cannot rest on a law that was never read to the accused.

“The Judgment Day Confusion Exposes the Collapse. How can a man be tried under one set of laws and then convicted under a different set of laws that were never put before him?

“Even more astonishing, Count 7 was then tied to CEMA, another statute both misapplied and statute-barred, with a limitation period of five years long expired — and with the accused having already spent more than that period in unlawful detention. This is not jurisprudence. This is confusion multiplied by illegality.

“The Inescapable Conclusion

This Court lacked jurisdiction in four independent ways: Repealed enabling statute for Counts 1–6

Non-existent statute for Count 7

Supreme Court order disobeyed

Mandatory judicial notice refused

In law, when jurisdiction collapses, everything else collapses with it.

Nothing stands.

“The Demand: I make this statement in full fidelity to the Constitution:

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu cannot be lawfully convicted on repealed laws, non-existent laws, or laws secretly substituted on judgment day. His continued detention is unconstitutional. He must be released immediately and unconditionally.

“To convict a citizen under laws that do not exist is not merely a miscarriage of justice — it is the death of legality.

“Nigeria is better than this. Our Constitution demands better than this.

And history will remember who stood for the law, and who stood against it.”