Why Omotosho’s reliance on  repealed law to convict Kalu can’t stand – Lawyer

Why Omotosho’s reliance on  repealed law to convict Kalu can’t stand – Lawyer

Our Reporter

Lawyer and Public Affairs Analyst,  Barrister Christopher Chidera, has adduced reasons the reliance of Justice James Omotosho on a repealed law to convict the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPoB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, could not stand.

Chidera in a statement issued on Sunday, said the many judicial precedents contradict the decision of Justice Omotosho.

Below is his arguments:

“To understand how indefensible Justice Omotosho’s approach is, one must look at what the Supreme Court has consistently held for over four decades:

“Once a law is repealed, it becomes dead, extinct, and of no legal effect. It cannot be the foundation of a charge, trial, or conviction.

“This principle is not controversial.

It’s not ambiguous.

It’s not subject to judicial “assumption without conceding.”

“It is black-letter law, affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court.

“Below are the key authorities and why they vaporize Justice Omotosho’s approach.

“AG Lagos State v. Dosunmu (1989):

A Repealed Law Ceases to Exist in the Eyes of the Law**

“In AG Lagos State v. Dosunmu, the Supreme Court stressed that:

“When a statute is repealed, it is as if it never existed.

No right, no liability, and no trial can be founded on a repealed statute unless expressly preserved by a savings clause.

This directly supports Kanu’s objection.

“TPPA 2022 repealed TPAA 2013.

But Section 97 requires a migration of all pending charges.

TPAA 2013 was not preserved for criminal trials.

“Justice Omotosho ignored this, contrary to Dosunmu.

Uwaifo v. Attorney-General of Bendel State:

A Court That Applies a Repealed Law Acts Without Jurisdiction**

“In Uwaifo v AG Bendel State, the Supreme Court held:

“A repealed statute cannot confer jurisdiction, Any proceeding conducted under a repealed law is a nullity,

A judge must take judicial notice of the current state of the law.

This is exactly the scenario in Omotosho’s courtroom:

“The 2022 TPPA was the extant law.

The 2013 TPAA was extinct.

Failure to take judicial notice of the repeal is a jurisdictional defect.

Again, this is precisely why Kanu repeatedly said:

“My Lord, show me the law.”

Because the law Omotosho was applying no longer existed.

The Logical Analogy:

You Cannot Try Anyone Today Under the 1979 Constitution**

“No Nigerian court today can do the following:

“Apply the 1979 Constitution to decide a modern case.

Rely on Abdulsalami-era Decrees as if they were still operative.

Conduct a criminal trial under the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA) where the ACJA now governs.

Why?

Because those instruments have been expressly replaced by newer ones.

No Nigerian judge would ever say:

“Assuming, without conceding, that the 1979 Constitution is repealed…”

or

“Assuming, without conceding, that CPA has been replaced by ACJA…”

Yet this is exactly what Omotosho did with the TPAA.

If no judge can resurrect the 1979 Constitution,

If no judge can revive military decrees,

If no judge can use the CPA today to run a criminal trial,

Then no judge can use TPAA 2013 to try or convict anybody after TPPA 2022 came into force.

Why Justice Omotosho’s Position Is Not Just Wrong—It’s Impossible

A repealed law is:

Dead

Extinguished

Non-existent

Void ab initio for purpose of future prosecution

By refusing to apply TPPA 2022, Justice Omotosho:

acted without a legal foundation,

ignored mandatory statutory transition clauses,

violated Section 122 of the Evidence Act (judicial notice),

contradicted binding Supreme Court authority,

and operated ultra vires, without jurisdiction.

This is why every authority—including Dosunmu and Uwaifo—makes Omotosho’s approach insupportable.

The Unavoidable Outcome:

The Trial Collapses Automatically**

Once a trial is shown to have been conducted under a repealed statute:the foundation is gone, jurisdiction evaporates, the entire trial becomes a nullity, the conviction cannot stand,

and appellate courts have no choice but to set it aside. This is not a technicality. It is the very spine of criminal jurisprudence.

Conclusion:

Kanu’s Question Was the Only Question That Mattered.

When Kanu said:“Show me the law”, he was asking the judge to point to the existing statute authorizing the proceedings. Justice Omotosho could not—because that statute had been repealed.

No judge today can prosecute a case under the 1979 Constitution.

No judge can resurrect CPA when ACJA is in force. No judge can revive Decree No. 2 in a constitutional democracy.

And similarly—

No judge can use the 2013 TPAA when the 2022 TPPA is the extant law.

This is not debate. It is not doctrine.It is established constitutional fact. And that is why the entire trial cannot stand.