A lawyer, Christopher Chidera, Esq., has challenged the legal foundation of the proceedings that eventually led to the conviction and life imprisonment of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu.
In a public briefing note titled “How Each Court Broke the Law in the Kanu Case — and Why the Chain Cannot Stand,” Chidera argued that a series of decisions by the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and Federal High Court created what he described as an unlawful chain leading to Kanu’s conviction.
The lawyer's position centres on the relationship between Kanu’s 2022 discharge, the subsequent appeal by the Federal Government and the repeal of Nigeria’s earlier terrorism legislation.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja discharged Kanu and quashed the 15-count charge against him on October 13, 2022, holding that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction in view of his extraordinary rendition from Kenya. The Federal Government subsequently appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
Chidera argued that once the Court of Appeal had quashed the charges, any subsequent proceedings required a fresh legal foundation.
According to him, the central issue is the distinction between saving pending proceedings after a law is repealed and reviving the repealed criminal law itself.
“Savings preserve proceedings. They do not resurrect dead penal legislation,” he argued.
Challenge to Court of Appeal decision
Chidera specifically questioned the subsequent decision involving Justice Haruna Tsammani, arguing that the Court of Appeal had become functus officio after delivering its October 2022 judgment.
The Federal Government had successfully obtained a stay of execution of the Court of Appeal judgment pending its Supreme Court appeal, leaving Kanu in detention while the legal battle continued.
Chidera contended that a stay should not have been used to effectively keep a criminal discharge from taking effect.
Supreme Court questioned
The lawyer also challenged the Supreme Court's handling of the Federal Government's appeal.
He argued that setting aside the Court of Appeal's decision could not automatically amount to reviving charges that had already been quashed.
According to him, an appellate court could order a fresh trial where legally appropriate, but “continuation” of previously quashed counts raises a separate legal question.
He also questioned the treatment of the repealed terrorism legislation, arguing that a repealed criminal statute cannot simply be regarded as continuing in force because proceedings under it were preserved.
Federal High Court proceedings
Chidera further criticised the proceedings before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
He argued that the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, which repealed the earlier terrorism legislation, created a distinction between preserving pending proceedings and preserving the repealed law itself.
The lawyer said this distinction was particularly important in light of Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its prescribed punishment are defined in a written law.
Kanu had raised a similar argument during his 2025 trial, contending that he was being tried under a repealed law. Justice Omotosho rejected his objections and proceeded with the case.
The Federal High Court subsequently convicted Kanu on seven counts on November 20, 2025, and sentenced him to life imprisonment on several terrorism counts, with additional prison terms for other offences.
Kanu has since appealed the conviction, asking the Court of Appeal to quash the judgment and discharge and acquit him. Among his grounds is the argument that he was convicted under legislation that had already been repealed.
‘Show us the law’
Chidera maintained that the legal questions surrounding Kanu's case should be resolved by examining the applicable statutes, court decisions and constitutional provisions.
He identified three questions that he said should be answered:
“Show us the law that brought the quashed counts back into existence.”
“Show us the law that made a repealed penal statute still in force.”
“Show us the written law that defined the offences and the penalties on the day of conviction.”
He argued that the answers to those questions would determine whether the legal chain leading to Kanu’s conviction can withstand appellate scrutiny.
The Federal Government, however, has maintained its case against Kanu, while the Federal High Court held in 2025 that the prosecution had proved the charges against him beyond reasonable doubt.
Kanu's appeal against the conviction is now part of the ongoing legal battle.
