Frank Musa
A group identified as "Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium" has strongly condemned the life sentence verdict of Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Nigeria, on 20th November 2025, over the terrorism conviction on the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), saying the ruling was done outside the Nigerian extant laws.
In a memo titled "OMOTOSHO’S JUDGMENT IS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY" released to the general public on 22nd November 2025 and signed by Njoku Jude Njoku, Esq, the group stated that a "conviction under a repealed law cannot stand".
The detail of the public briefing is as given below:
"The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium wishes to inform the Nigerian public, the Bar, and the international community that the 20 November 2025 judgment delivered by Hon. Justice James Omotosho in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu is unsustainable in law, untenable under the Constitution, and void for want of jurisdiction.
"This is not rhetoric. It is a matter of black-letter law, constitutional command, and non-negotiable legal principle.
"1. THE COURT CONVICTED UNDER A LAW THAT NO LONGER EXISTS
By Section 104 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013—the very statute Justice Omotosho relied upon—was fully repealed.
"A repealed law is a dead law.
A court cannot revive it.
A conviction cannot stand on it.
"Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution is emphatic:
"No person shall be convicted unless the offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law.
“Written law” means a law in force on the day of conviction.
On 20 November 2025, the 2013 Act was not in force.
It is legally impossible to convict anyone under it.
"This alone renders the judgment a nullity.
"2. SAVINGS CLAUSES CANNOT RESURRECT A REPEALED CRIMINAL STATUTE
The Prosecution unsuccessfully attempted to rely on a “savings clause” in the 2022 Act.
"But Nigerian law is clear:
"Savings clauses preserve pending matters.
They do not create new proceedings.
They do not override the Constitution.
They do not resurrect repealed laws.
After the Court of Appeal’s 13 October 2022 discharge, there was no “pending” proceeding to save.
What followed in 2023 was a new trial, which cannot be rooted in a repealed law.
"The attempt to use a transitional clause as a resurrection tool is legally impermissible.
"3. THE EXTANT 2022 TERRORISM ACT NARROWS TERRORISM AND EXCLUDES NON-VIOLENT POLITICAL EXPRESSION
The TPPA 2022—the only governing statute—materially changes Nigerian terrorism law:
"Terrorism now requires conduct involving violence or grievous harm.
Non-violent protest, advocacy, dissent, and political agitation are expressly excluded.
"The allegations against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu relate to speeches, broadcasts, and political advocacy. These do not meet the definition of terrorism under the 2022 Act.
"The Constitution (Section 36(8)) also requires courts to apply the lighter or more favourable law—in this case, the TPPA 2022.
The trial court failed to do so.
"4. THE RESULT: A JUDGMENT THAT COLLAPSES UNDER ITS OWN CONTRADICTIONS
By convicting under a repealed law, ignoring the controlling statute, and applying a harsher non-existent regime, the judgment:
"violates Section 1(3) (Supremacy of the Constitution), breaches Section 36(8), 36(9), 36(12), lacks jurisdiction, and is incapable of withstanding appellate review.
"These are not technicalities.
They go to the foundation of the criminal justice system.
"5. THE DEFENCE POSITION
We state categorically:
"This judgment will not survive appellate scrutiny. A Notice of Appeal will be filed.
The grounds are rooted firmly in:
"Constitutional supremacy, statutory repeal, the doctrine of nullity, and the mandatory application of the extant 2022 Act.
"The Consortium remains confident that the Court of Appeal will restore legality, uphold constitutional norms, and vacate this defective conviction," the group concluded.
RostrumNews
