A fresh legal argument has emerged in the ongoing case involving the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, with lawyer Onyedikachi Ifedi contending that the conviction secured before Justice James Omotosho was founded on a repealed law and therefore lacks constitutional validity.
In a public briefing note titled “A Guide to Omotosho’s Misapplication and Misunderstanding of the Law: Why the ‘Show Me the Law’ Demand Ended the Case,” Ifedi argued that the central issue before the Court of Appeal is not whether Kanu’s case survived the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, but whether the conviction was ultimately grounded in a law that was legally in force at the time judgment was delivered.
Using the analogy of a traveller moving from an old road to a newly constructed one, the lawyer explained that the enactment of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act (TPPA) 2022 effectively repealed the earlier Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act (TPAA) 2013.
According to him, while Section 98(3) of the 2022 law preserved ongoing cases through a savings clause, Section 97 specifically directed that all pending proceedings should continue and be concluded under the provisions of the new Act.
He argued that the savings clause was designed only to prevent existing cases from collapsing after the repeal of the old law, not to authorize courts to continue relying on the repealed legislation for convictions.
“The bridge exists to carry pending cases from the old law to the new law. Once the crossing is made, the journey must continue under the new statute,” the legal brief contended.
Ifedi alleged that although the court acknowledged the existence of the transitional provisions, it failed to complete the transition mandated by Parliament and instead continued to rely on provisions of the repealed 2013 legislation.
According to him, this raises a constitutional question regarding compliance with Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence and its penalty are prescribed in a written law.
The lawyer maintained that Kanu repeatedly challenged the court to identify the exact provisions of the 2022 Act that allegedly created the offences for which he was convicted and prescribed the corresponding penalties.
That challenge, popularly summarized as “Show me the law,” forms the foundation of the appeal now before the appellate court.
Ifedi argued that judicial notice of the repeal was mandatory and that the court ought to have fully addressed the implications of the legislative changes before reaching its decision.
According to him, the issue is not whether the proceedings remained alive after the repeal, since both sides accept that the savings clause preserved the case. Rather, the dispute centres on whether the conviction itself was secured under a valid and operative law.
He further contended that a repealed statute cannot be regarded as a “written law in force” for the purposes of securing a criminal conviction and that the savings clause cannot revive a repealed penal provision.
The legal brief therefore urged the Court of Appeal to determine whether the offences and punishments applied in Kanu’s conviction can be clearly traced to provisions of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
According to the argument, if no such provisions can be identified, the conviction would lack constitutional foundation and should be set aside.
The appeal is expected to reignite legal debate over the interpretation of transitional provisions in criminal legislation, the effect of repealed statutes on ongoing proceedings, and the constitutional safeguards governing criminal convictions in Nigeria.
At the heart of the controversy remains a question the brief insists has not yet been answered: whether the conviction was obtained under a valid law in force at the time judgment was delivered.
For the appellant’s legal team, that question can be summed up in four words: “Show me the law.”
