24.11.2025
As the life sentence handed to the Indigenous People of Biafra leader, Nnamdi Kanu continues to generate debate, his family said the Federal High Court’s judgement last week in Abuja was legally flawed.
Kanu was last week sentenced to life imprison after being found guilty of terrorism charges.
But in a statement signed by Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu Kanu family, the family argued that the law with which Mr. Kanu was charged had been repealed.
They noted that “we raised several legal points in court, including Section 36(12) of the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions on repealed laws, and previous directives related to earlier charges.”
“No person shall be convicted unless the offence is defined in a written law in force at the time,” and added that previous Supreme Court rulings support this principle.
They added, “The Court of Appeal discharged and acquitted him. That decision terminated all charges,” and explained that the subsequent charges before Justice Omotosho initiated “a new case, commencing de novo.”
Meanwhile, human rights lawyer and public rights advocate, Barrister Christopher Chidera, said Kanu’s trial violated provisions of Nigeria’s Constitution.
In a statement titled, ‘The Nnamdi Kanu judgment is a legal nullity built on repealed and non-existent laws’, the rights lawyer insisted that a court cannot invent jurisdiction over an offence that does not exist in any statute.
“The world must hear this clearly and without distortion: Nigeria cannot claim to be a constitutional democracy while its courts attempt to convict a citizen under laws that do not exist. This is not advocacy. This is not interpretation. This is not politics. This is the plain truth of the law.”
Faulting the judgment, he noted that counts 1–6 of the charge were anchored on a repealed law.
“The prosecution-built Counts 1–6 on the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 — a statute that has been repealed and is no longer part of Nigeria’s criminal law.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: “A person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined in a written law in force at the time.”
“A repealed law is not a “written law in force”. A conviction under a repealed law is void. There is no exception. There is no judicial creativity that can cure repeal.
“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.”