Follow Us on Google
•Defence Consortium faults conviction, vows to appeal
By Olakunle Olafioye
The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium has described the November 20, 2025 judgement which convicted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) of acts of terrorism, as a legal impossibility and expressed its conviction that the judgment will not survive appellate scrutiny.
The Federal High Court Abuja, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, had on Thursday sentenced Kanu to life imprisonment for acts of terrorism.
But a statement signed by Njoku Jude Njoku on behalf of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium said the law relied upon by the court is not only unsustainable in law but also untenable under the constitution and void for want of jurisdiction.
The statement reads in part: The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium wishes to inform the Nigerian public, the Bar, and the international community that the 20 November 2025 judgment delivered by Hon. Justice James Omotosho in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu is unsustainable in law, untenable under the Constitution, and void for want of jurisdiction.
“By Section 104 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013—the very statute Justice Omotosho relied upon—was fully repealed. A repealed law is a dead law. A court cannot revive it. A conviction cannot stand on it.
Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution is emphatic: “No person shall be convicted unless the offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law. “Written law” means a law in force on the day of conviction. On 20 November 2025, the 2013 Act was not in force. It is legally impossible to convict anyone under it. This alone renders the judgment a nullity.”
The group noted further that the resort by the court to ‘savings clause’ failed to strengthen the position of the court, saying “the prosecution unsuccessfully attempted to rely on a “savings clause” in the 2022 Act. But Nigerian law is clear: Savings clauses preserve pending matters. They do not create new proceedings. They do not override the Constitution. They do not resurrect repealed laws.
“After the Court of Appeal’s 13 October 2022 discharge, there was no “pending” proceeding to save. What followed in 2023 was a new trial, which cannot be rooted in a repealed law. The attempt to use a transitional clause as a resurrection tool is legally impermissible.”
The group maintained that by convicting Kanu under a repealed law, the judgement violates Section 1(3) (Supremacy of the Constitution), breaches Section 36(8), 36(9), 36(12), lacks jurisdiction, and is incapable of withstanding appellate review.
“We state categorically: This judgment will not survive appellate scrutiny. A notice of appeal will be filed,” the group declared, expressing confidence that the appellate would upturn the judgement.
