Nnamdi Kanu:Criminal trial, conviction can’t proceed on repealed law, legal expert tells Justice Omotosho
By Steve Oko
A Constitutional Purist and Legal expert Christopher Chidera, has argued that conviction or criminal trial cannot proceed on a repealed law.
The lawyer was reacting to the pronouncement by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court Abuja, that he would deliver judgment on the terrorism charge suit by the federal government against the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPoB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
Barrister Chidera argued that it was strange to continue with Kanu’s trial even when it had been established that he was charged on a repealed law which is no longer in existence.
The lawyer threw his weight on Kanu’s poser to Justice Omotosho when the IPoB leader who is currently defending himself said in court:“My Lord, I put it to you that there is no instance in Nigeria since 1999 where a conviction or criminal trial has proceeded on a repealed law.”
He declared that “not one Nigerian court, from the Supreme Court to the High Court, has ever sustained a trial or conviction under a repealed statute”, adding that “every known attempt was quashed as a nullity.”
Barrister Chidera in a statement on Wednesday said:”When Mazi Nnamdi Kanu confronted Justice Omotosho with the above query, the courtroom paused. The judge raised a law book but offered no answer. The silence spoke volumes.”
Continuing, the statement said:”Today, that question is answered — definitively, constitutionally, and jurisprudentially.
There is no single instance in Nigeria since 1999 where a criminal trial, conviction, or plea was sustained under a repealed law. None exists. None can exist.
Citing the Canon which says that ‘Repeal Kills Prosecution’, Barrister Chidera maintained that “a repealed criminal statute dies ab initio.”
“It cannot sustain a trial, conviction, or plea unless explicitly saved by the repealing Act — and even then, only for truly ‘pending’ proceedings.
“General savings clauses (e.g., Interpretation Act s.6(1)(a), Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 s.98(3)) are mere irritants. They cannot override s.36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which forbids conviction for any offence not “defined and in force” at the time of trial.
“Under Evidence Act s.122, courts must judicially notice repeals. Failure to do so is not mere error — it is a fraud on the Constitution.
“Exhaustive Jurisprudential Search — The Vacuum Confirmed
A sweeping search of Nigerian and global legal databases (1999–2025) yields zero instances where a repealed law sustained a criminal trial, conviction, or plea.
“Databases Queried:
NigeriaLII, LawPavilion (LPELR), PLAC Laws, CommonLII, Globalex, JSTOR, SSRN, Refworld, and targeted web/X searches.
He further argued that “Post-1999 Precedents indicated that Repeal is equal to Extinction:”
Citing Abacha v. State (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 779) 437, he said “Repeal extinguishes offences; savings cannot “breathe life into what is already dead.”
The statement further read:”Charges void; no plea or conviction upheld.
Orthopaedic Hospitals Mgmt. Bd. v. Garba (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 788) 538Liabilities end unless expressly preserved; applies by parity to criminal prosecutions.
“Proceedings collapsed; no plea sustained. FRN v. Osahon (2006) 5 NWLR (Pt. 973) 361 No prosecution survives repeal; general savings cannot revive repealed offences. Charges struck out; accused discharged.
Utah v. State (2016) LPELR-40077(SC) “Clear and specific” preservation required; de novo trials post-repeal are nullities. EFCC charges voided; no conviction validated.
Referencing Kure v. COP (2020) LPELR-49378(S), he said “Repealed Code provisions void; dual convictions impermissible post-repeal.”
The statement further read:”Conviction set aside. Nwobike v. FRN (2021) LPELR-56670(SC) Offence not defined by extant law is unconstitutional; plea to invalid charge null. Conviction quashed in part. Pattern: In every case, repeal ended proceedings. Courts discharged accused persons, struck out charges, or voided convictions. No trial proceeded to valid conclusion under a repealed law — not once.”
Citing constitutional barrier as one of the reasons no instances exist, the statement said:“No person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law in force at the time of trial.”
“Once repealed, the law is no longer in force, any charge under it collapses ab initio”, he added.
” Interpretation Act’s Limited Reach:
Section 6(1)(a) of the Interpretation Act cannot override the Constitution. Its “savings” apply only to civil liabilities or procedural matters, never to sustain dead criminal statutes (Abacha v. State).
“Judicial Notice of Repeal:
Under Evidence Act s.122, courts must recognize repeals automatically. Ignorance of repeal voids jurisdiction (Utah v. State, 2016). Records of proceedings show that till date Justice Omotosho is yet to take judicial notice of the repeal of Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013. A fatal error in law.
“The De Novo Trap:
When an appellate court orders retrial after repeal, the new trial is a fresh proceeding, not a continuation. The repealed law cannot revive (Ogbomor v. State, 1985; applied in Utah, 2016).
“Application to Kanu’s Case:
In SC/CR/1361/2022, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu stands charged under the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 (as amended 2013) — a law repealed by the TPPA 2022.
“The repeal took effect May 2022. The fresh arraignment and de novo trial commenced December 2023. Therefore, at the time of trial, the repealed statute was not in force.
“By constitutional compulsion:Dead law = Dead case. The trial is a nullity.
Any plea or conviction thereunder is void ab initio.
He concluded by saying that “the Constitution Speaks Last”, adding that “since 1999, no Nigerian court has ever sustained a criminal trial, conviction, or plea under a repealed law.”
” The doctrine is absolute and final.
Repeal kills prosecution — totally, instantly, and irrevocably.
“To proceed under a repealed statute is to conduct a trial without law, an act forbidden by Section 36(12) and condemned by precedent.
“Justice Omotosho’s silence was not oversight — it was constitutional paralysis.
“The answer was always clear:
There are no zombie prosecutions in Nigerian law. Repeal kills trials. Repeal kills convictions. Repeal kills pleas.”
More Stories
Nnamdi Kanu files ‘arrest judgment motion,’ * Releases dossier of his arguments in preliminary objection
Lawyer sheds light on ‘arrest judgment motion’ filed by Nnamdi Kanu
Kanu tells Supreme Court to set aside judgment ordering his retrial at high court