A legal practitioner, Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., has criticised the judgment in the case involving Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, arguing that the trial court violated constitutional and statutory provisions by relying on the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, which he contends had been repealed before Kanu’s conviction.
In a legal commentary titled, “A Court That Refuses to Show the Law Has Abandoned the Constitution,” Ifedi focused on Kanu’s reported demand during proceedings: “My Lord, show me the law.”
According to the lawyer, the question was not merely a procedural request but went to the constitutional requirement that a person can only be convicted of a criminal offence where the offence and its punishment are established under a written law in force.
Ifedi specifically cited Sections 36(6)(a) and 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, arguing that the provisions required the court to identify the applicable law under which Kanu was being prosecuted and convicted.
He questioned what terrorism legislation was legally applicable on November 20, 2025, and argued that the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 had ceased to operate following the enactment of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
The lawyer therefore contended that convicting Kanu under provisions of the earlier legislation amounted to relying on a repealed law.
Ifedi also raised issues concerning the Evidence Act 2011, particularly Section 122, which deals with facts of which courts may take judicial notice.
He argued that Nigerian courts are required to take judicial notice of the laws of the country and maintained that the trial court should have addressed the legal effect of the repeal of the 2013 terrorism legislation.
The lawyer further criticised the court's reported treatment of the repeal issue, arguing that a court should not merely “assume without conceding” that a penal statute had been repealed while simultaneously relying on provisions of that legislation in reaching a conviction.
Ifedi also cited several Nigerian appellate decisions, including Orugbo v. Una, Ogbomor v. The State, Nwankwoala v. FRN and A.G. Lagos v. Dosunmu, which he said support the principle that courts cannot validly conduct criminal proceedings or sustain convictions under legislation that has ceased to exist.
Another major issue raised by the lawyer concerns the transition from the 2013 terrorism legislation to the 2022 Act.
He cited Sections 97 and 98 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, arguing that the legislation contained provisions requiring pending proceedings under the repealed law to continue under the new legal framework.
According to him, the trial court should therefore have migrated the proceedings to the 2022 legislation rather than continuing with the earlier statutory framework.
Ifedi argued that the court could have amended the charge, re-arraigned the defendant or otherwise brought the proceedings under the applicable 2022 legislation.
He further rejected the argument that the savings provision in Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act could keep the repealed legislation alive for purposes of conviction.
The lawyer described the issues collectively as fundamental questions concerning the constitutional validity of the conviction.
He argued that the alleged failure to address the applicable legislation, the repeal of the 2013 Act and the transition provisions in the 2022 Act could not be treated as minor procedural errors.
“If the law under which a person is convicted was no longer in force on the date of conviction, the validity of that conviction becomes a fundamental question,” the lawyer's argument states.
Ifedi ultimately maintained that the legality of Kanu’s conviction should be tested against the legislation that was in force at the time the judgment was delivered.
He concluded that the central question was whether the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 remained legally operative on the date of Kanu’s conviction, arguing that it did not.
The commentary was signed by Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., on September 26, 2026.
