… Lawyer explains Kanu’s “show me the law” outburst

From Stanley Uzoaru, Owerri

Human rights lawyer, Christopher Chidera, has broken down the legal basis for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s repeated “show me the law” outburst in court, arguing that the core of Kanu’s appeal is not about whether his trial survived repeal, but whether the law used to convict him was still in force as of November 20, 2025.

Chidera, explaining in a statement he released to journalists, said the confusion around Kanu’s case stems from conflating two different legal issues: the effect of a savings clause and the constitutional requirement under Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution.

He said the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 was repealed by the National Assembly through the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022. “Nobody disputes this,” he wrote.

The problem, he said, arose when Kanu raised the repeal on October 23 and November 4, 5, 7, and 20, 2025. Justice James Omotosho, he alleged, “refused to formally take judicial notice of the repeal” under Section 122 of the Evidence Act and, instead, proceeded on an “assuming without conceding” basis.

Chidera argued that this meant the court never properly determined what “written law was actually in force for the purpose of conviction” as required by Section 36(12).

He conceded that Section 98(3) of the 2022 TPPA is a savings clause that protects ongoing cases. Kanu’s appeal “does not fight this point,” he said, adding that the trial could continue.

But Chidera drew a sharp distinction: “A savings clause keeps the case moving. It does not define any crime. It does not prescribe any punishment. It is not the law you can convict someone under.”

He cited Section 6 of the Interpretation Act, which says repeal does not destroy pending proceedings where preserved by a savings clause.

However, he added, preserving a proceeding “is not the same thing as preserving the repealed statute itself as a living penal law.”

Section 36(12) of the Constitution states that no person shall be convicted unless the offence is defined and the punishment prescribed in a written law in force at the time.

“A repealed law is not a written law in force on November 20, 2025, the date of conviction,” Chidera wrote. He said Kanu’s repeated question “Show me the law”  was not a demand to see the savings clause or the old repealed Act, but to see “the written law in force on November 20, 2025 that defines the offence and prescribes the punishment.”

He accused Justice Omotosho of skipping the judicial-notice duty and never “clearly point to the specific offence-creating sections of the current 2022 Act.” Chidera said the burden now shifts to the Court of Appeal: “It must identify the written law that was in force on November 20, 2025 and that defined the offences and prescribed the punishments for which Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was convicted.”

“If such a law can be clearly identified, the court can say so. If such a law cannot be identified, then the court must confront the constitutional implications of Section 36(12).”

He concluded his statement by stressing that “everyone agrees” Kanu’s case survived repeal due to the savings clause. “This appeal is about whether the law used to convict survived repeal. That is the question Mazi Nnamdi Kanu asked from the beginning. That is the question Justice Omotosho never answered. And that is the question the Court of Appeal must now answer. “Show me the law.”