Kanu’s Lawyer Cites Constitution, Seeks Reversal Of Conviction

A lawyer to convicted Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) chief Nnamdi Kanu, has challenged the authorized foundation of the conviction, arguing that the trial courtroom relied on a repealed terrorism legislation as an alternative of the laws in drive on the time of judgment.

Christopher Chidera, who can be a member of the Global Legal Consortium for Kanu, argued Kanu’s conviction violated Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, stressing that the part prohibits conviction for an offence besides beneath a written legislation that defines the offence and prescribes its penalty.

He faulted the courtroom’s reliance on the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2013, contending that the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 had changed the sooner laws.

According to him, the central challenge is whether or not a conviction and sentence can stand when the trial courtroom depends immediately on repealed statutory provisions regardless of the existence of a alternative legislation.

“Saved liability is not saved law. Saved proceedings are not saved penal provisions,” Chidera mentioned, difficult the argument that statutory financial savings provisions may protect using repealed penal provisions within the judgment.

He argued that Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act couldn’t override the constitutional necessities for a legitimate conviction.

“The framers of Section 36(12) never contemplated a savings clause as a constituent element of a valid written law,” he mentioned.

Chidera maintained that the constitutional provision required a legitimate authorized foundation for each the offence and the punishment on the time of conviction and sentencing.

He distinguished between provisions preserving liabilities and pending proceedings following the repeal of a legislation and provisions authorising a courtroom to convict and sentence a defendant beneath the repealed laws.

According to him, Section 98(3) protects accrued liabilities and pending proceedings from robotically terminating due to the repeal of a statute, however doesn’t essentially authorise a courtroom to impose punishment beneath repealed provisions.

He additionally cited Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act, arguing that the trial courtroom ought to have utilized the statutory transition provisions governing the change from the 2013 laws to the 2022 legislation.

“Justice Omotosho committed a fatal double error: he treated a permissive savings clause (Section 98(3)) as authority to convict under a dead law, while flatly disobeying the mandatory transition commands in Sections 97 and 98(2) directing migration to the 2022 Act,” he mentioned.

Chidera additional argued that the constitutional requirement couldn’t be glad merely as a result of the conduct for which a defendant was convicted was additionally an offence beneath the alternative laws.

“Under Section 36(12), ‘written law’ means an active, subsisting Act in force on the date of conviction and sentencing. That the 2013 TPA was once written law does not make it written law on judgment day,” he mentioned.

He contended that the courtroom’s reliance on repealed penal provisions raised a basic query in regards to the authorized authority for the sentence imposed on Kanu.

The lawyer additionally disputed the reliance on earlier Supreme Court selections, together with Adonike v. State, Ogbomor v. State and Awosika v. IGP, which he mentioned had been cited to assist the argument that references to repealed legal guidelines may quantity to innocent errors.

According to Chidera, these circumstances had been distinguishable as a result of, in his interpretation, the convictions and sentences had been finally based mostly on legal guidelines that remained in drive.

He argued that in Adonike v. State (2015), the reference to the defunct 1976 Bendel Criminal Code appeared on the cost sheet, whereas the trial decide utilized the Delta State Criminal Code 2008 in evaluating the offence and imposing the sentence.

He equally maintained that the selections in Ogbomor and Awosika didn’t set up {that a} conviction could possibly be upheld the place the trial decide had relied immediately on repealed provisions for each conviction and sentencing.

“The Golden Rule: In every affirmed case in Nigerian history, extant law supplied the conviction and penalty; the repealed citation was pleading only,” Chidera mentioned.

He added that the precept of substantive equivalence, beneath which related conduct might stay prison beneath a alternative legislation, couldn’t by itself resolve the constitutional query.

“‘Substantive equivalence’ (that the conduct was wrong under both laws) satisfies moral intuition, not Section 36(12), which demands an active written law at conviction,” he mentioned.

Chidera additionally raised issues about how the Court of Appeal may handle the alleged error with out compromising Kanu’s constitutional proper to a good listening to.

He outlined two attainable approaches for the appellate courtroom: quashing the conviction on the bottom that it was based mostly on repealed provisions, or trying to uphold it by figuring out corresponding provisions within the 2022 Act.

He argued that the second strategy may increase fair-hearing issues if the appellate courtroom relied on provisions that weren’t the premise of the case defended at trial.