Follow Us on Google
By Seyi Babalola
The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium has dismissed the November 20 conviction of the IPOB leader by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, describing the ruling as “unsustainable in law” and “void for want of jurisdiction.”
In a statement signed and issued to Daily Sun on Saturday by Njoku Jude Njoku, Esq., the defence team argued that the conviction was based on a statute that no longer exists in Nigeria’s legal framework.
According to the Consortium, Justice Omotosho relied on provisions of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013—a law that was expressly repealed by Section 104 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022.
“A repealed law is a dead law. A court cannot revive it and a conviction cannot stand on it,” the statement read, citing Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which requires that an offence must be defined and punishable under a law in force at the time of conviction.
The defence further argued that since the 2013 terrorism law was no longer operative as of November 20, 2025, any conviction anchored on it was a “nullity.”
Other News
The Consortium also rejected the prosecution’s dependence on the TPPA 2022 savings clause, insisting that transitional provisions cannot resurrect a repealed criminal statute nor override constitutional guarantees. It added that following the Court of Appeal’s October 2022 discharge of Kanu, no “pending” proceedings existed that could have been preserved by such clauses.
Moreover, the statement emphasized that the current TPPA 2022 narrows the definition of terrorism to violent conduct or acts causing grievous harm. The defence argued that the allegations against Kanu—largely relating to broadcasts, speeches, and political advocacy—do not meet the threshold of terrorism under the updated law.
“The trial court failed to apply the extant law and instead imposed a harsher, non-existent regime,” Njoku stated, adding that this contravenes Section 36(8) of the Constitution, which requires courts to apply the more lenient law where criminal statutes change.
Describing the judgment as one that “collapses under its own contradictions,” the Consortium said it violates multiple constitutional provisions—including Sections 1(3), 36(8), 36(9), and 36(12)—and lacks the jurisdictional foundation to survive appellate review.
The defence team confirmed that a notice of appeal will be filed, expressing confidence that the Court of Appeal will overturn the conviction and “restore legality.”
