Lawyer Challenges FG Over Law Behind Kanu’s Conviction

A lawyer, Barrister Christopher Chidera, has challenged the Federal Government to identify and defend the specific law under which the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, was convicted.

Chidera who’s a member of Global Legal Consortium to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu also backed the Okwu-Kanu family’s call for the immediate listing and determination of Kanu’s pending matters before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.

In a statement titled, “Show Him The Law: Nigeria Cannot Hide Behind Public Legal Illiteracy,” the lawyer questioned why the Federal Government was allegedly reluctant to have the matter determined by the appellate courts if it was confident in the legality of Kanu’s conviction.

According to him, Kanu has repeatedly sought the hearing of his pending matters, arguing that the government should come to court and defend the conviction rather than rely on public misunderstanding of complex criminal-law principles.

“If the Federal Government believes that his conviction is legally sound, it should come to court and defend it,” Chidera said.

“There is nowhere to hide,” the lawyer said.

The lawyer’s argument centres on Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence and its penalty are defined in a written law.

Chidera therefore questioned what he described as the “extant written law” governing the offence and punishment at the time Kanu was convicted on November 20, 2025.

He argued that if the law under which Kanu was convicted had already been repealed, invoking a savings provision could not, by itself, resolve the constitutional question.

“A savings clause is not a penal statute. It does not create the offence. It does not prescribe the punishment. It is not, by itself, the written criminal law contemplated by Section 36(12),” he said.

Chidera explained that savings provisions generally preserve specified legal consequences, including proceedings, investigations or liabilities, subject to the precise wording of the relevant legislation.

He maintained that such a provision should not be interpreted as automatically transforming a repealed criminal statute into an extant penal law.

The lawyer said the issue should now be determined by the appellate courts, particularly the Court of Appeal, which he said would have to examine the statutory framework surrounding Kanu’s conviction.

He listed questions he believes require judicial determination, including what law was in force when the conviction was entered, what written law defined the offence, and what written law prescribed the punishment.

He also drew attention to Section 97 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022, which, according to him, provides for proceedings commenced under repealed legislation to be continued and completed under the 2022 Act.

Chidera said the existence of such a savings provision should not end the constitutional inquiry.

“If the answer is that a savings provision preserved the old proceedings, the next question remains: Where is the extant written law satisfying Section 36(12) under which the conviction itself was entered?” he asked.

The lawyer said the questions were not matters of public relations or political rhetoric but legal issues that should be addressed by the courts.

“These are not complicated questions. They are questions of law,” he said.

Chidera further recalled that Kanu had raised similar questions during his trial, particularly through the demand, “Show me the law.”

He said Kanu was now effectively asking the Court of Appeal to answer the same question.

“If the Federal Government believes the answer is favourable to it, let it come to court and give that answer,” he said.

Chidera also rejected what he described as reliance on public legal ignorance to settle a constitutionally significant question.

He argued that the validity of a criminal conviction should not depend on whether members of the public understand the technicalities surrounding savings clauses, repealed legislation or constitutional protections.

“The courtroom is not a public-relations exercise,” he said.