US Foundation Offers $10,000 To Challenge Legal Basis Of Kanu’s Conviction

Rising Sun Foundation USA has supplied a $10,000 reward to anybody who produces a verifiable Nigerian judicial precedent upholding a felony conviction primarily based on a statute that had been repealed earlier than the conviction was entered.

The basis introduced the problem on Wednesday in a press release signed by its chair, Dr Maxwell Dede, questioning the authorized foundation of the conviction of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) chief, Nnamdi Kanu, by the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Kanu was convicted on November 20, 2025, by Justice James Omotosho on seven counts, in keeping with the assertion.

The basis alleged that the conviction was primarily based on the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, which it mentioned had been repealed earlier than the judgment was delivered.

“This challenge is issued for one clear reason,” the muse mentioned, arguing that the conviction raised constitutional questions below Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution.

The provision states that an individual shall not be convicted of a felony offence except the offence is outlined and its penalty prescribed in a written legislation.

“Section 36(12) is absolute: no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law in force. A repealed statute is not a written law in force,” the muse acknowledged.

Rising Sun Foundation mentioned the $10,000 reward can be paid into any checking account worldwide inside seven working days after verification of proof submitted in response to the problem.

The organisation directed the problem to Justice Omotosho, authorized practitioners, lecturers, jurists and authorized establishments in Nigeria and different international locations.

It referred to as on them to supply a judicial choice that met its acknowledged standards.

“Produce one verifiable Nigerian judicial precedent in which a court lawfully entered a conviction founded on a statute that had already been repealed at the time of conviction,” the assertion mentioned.

The basis cited the case of Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961), arguing that the choice established the precept that felony legal responsibility have to be primarily based on an offence recognised by written legislation.

It additionally referenced Temple Nwankwoala v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2018), quoting a press release attributed to Justice Rhodes-Vivour.

“A trial conducted under a law that has been repealed, no matter how well conducted and decided is a nullity,” the muse quoted the decide as saying.

The organisation additional cited the Supreme Court’s choice in State v. Egigia (2024), LPELR-62009(SC), which it mentioned was quoted by Justice Omotosho on web page 72 of his November 20, 2025 judgment.

The passage reproduced within the basis’s assertion reads: “The law is settled that a repealed law no more has legal life, thus, it cannot be cited as if it still exists. If it must be cited at all, it must be cited as a repealed law, which has no life to influence an argument. A repealed law cannot be the basis for any comparison with existing law. It cannot be quoted side by side an existing law as learned advocate did.”

The basis argued that the passage raised questions in regards to the authorized foundation of Kanu’s conviction, given its allegation that the judgment relied on the repealed 2013 terrorism laws.

It mentioned the problem couldn’t be resolved by counting on instances during which courts corrected faulty statutory citations in cost sheets whereas making use of legal guidelines that remained in pressure.

“The question is whether any Nigerian court has ever upheld a conviction whose actual legal foundation was a statute that had genuinely been repealed,” the assertion mentioned.

It additionally referred to Ogbomor v. State (1985) and Boniface Adonike v. State (2015), arguing that the instances didn’t set up a precedent for upholding a conviction based on a repealed statute as a result of, in keeping with the organisation, the convictions in these instances have been entered below legal guidelines that remained in pressure.

Rising Sun Foundation additionally addressed the chance {that a} statutory financial savings provision may protect felony proceedings or legal responsibility following the repeal of a legislation.

“If the argument is raised that a savings provision preserved the proceedings or liability, those relying on that argument must demonstrate how that transitional clause lawfully supplies the written-law foundation required by Section 36(12) of the Constitution for the offences and penalties imposed at conviction,” the assertion mentioned.

The basis maintained that the existence of a basic financial savings clause wouldn’t, by itself, settle the constitutional query it raised.

“Merely pointing to the existence of a general savings clause does not automatically convert a repealed penal statute into an operative written law in force,” it added.

The organisation referred to as on the authorized group both to supply a qualifying judicial precedent or to reveal the statutory and constitutional provisions that permitted Kanu’s conviction to be entered below the circumstances it described.