By CHARLES IWUOHA

Reactions have continued to trail the conviction of leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, on terrorism charges by an Abuja Federal High Court presided by Justice James Omotosho.

Kanu, who was sentenced to life imprisonment following his conviction on the charges filed by the Nigerian government, is currently serving the prison term at Sokoto Correctional Centre.

However, a human rights lawyer and public rights advocate, Barrister Christopher Chidera, has picked holes in the judgment, arguing that Kanu was convicted with repealed and non-existent laws.

In a statement on Tuesday, Chidera noted that the judgment of the Abuja Federal High Court was not in line with Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which stipulated that a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence, unless the offence is defined in a written law in force at the time.

According to him, the law under which Kanu was charged was no longer a written law in force at the time he was convicted.

The lawyer faulted the judgment for treating the Constitution as a suggestion rather than the country’s supreme law.

“The Constitution is not a suggestion – it is the supreme law. The Nnamdi Kanu judgment is a legal nullity built on repealed and non-existent laws,” the human rights lawyer stated.

Chidera further noted that the judgment does not portray Nigeria as a constitutional democracy.

The statement added: “The world must hear this clearly and without distortion – Nigeria cannot claim to be a constitutional democracy while its courts attempt to convict a citizen under laws that do not exist. The prosecution built Counts 1–6 on the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 — a statute that has been repealed and is no longer part of Nigeria’s criminal law.

“Section 36(12) of the Constitution is unequivocal – “A person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined in a written law in force at the time.”

“A repealed law is not a “written law in force”. A conviction under a repealed law is void.There is no exception. There is no judicial creativity that can cure repeal.

“Count 7 is based on a non-existent statute. Count 7 claims reliance on the so-called “Criminal Code Act Cap C45.”

“There is no such Act in Nigeria’s statute book. It is a legal ghost — a fiction. The Supreme Court of Nigeria itself held that Count 7 was defective and ordered it to be corrected. Neither the prosecution nor the trial court complied.”

Arguing that a court cannot invent jurisdiction over an offence that does not exist in any statute, the lawyer declared: “A judge cannot rewrite Nigeria’s laws from the bench.”

He faulted the trial court for allegedly ignoring a Supreme Court directive for amendment of Count 7 of the charge against Kanu.

“In any constitutional democracy, a lower court cannot sit in open defiance of the highest court. This is not just procedural failure — it is a direct assault on the rule of law,” he added.

The statement further observed that the Abuja Federal High Court refused to take judicial notice of the repeal of the law under which Kanu was charged.

“Section 122 of the Evidence Act makes repeal of public statutes a matter for mandatory judicial notice. Repeated requests to the trial court to take notice were refused. A judge who refuses to acknowledge the very existence of the laws he swore to uphold has abandoned the judicial oath he took under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

“Charges cannot be amended by written address. Situs cannot be invented by affidavit. A conviction cannot rest on a law that was never read to the accused. How can a man be tried under one set of laws and then convicted under a different set of laws that were never put before him?

“Even more astonishing, Count 7 was then tied to CEMA, another statute both misapplied and statute-barred, with a limitation period of five years long expired — and with the accused having already spent more than that period in unlawful detention,” Chidera said.

Insisting that the court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute and convict Kanu, the lawyer declared that “Mazi Nnamdi Kanu cannot be lawfully convicted on repealed laws, non-existent laws, or laws secretly substituted on judgment day.”

The rights lawyer demanded Kanu’s immediate release, declaring his continued detention unconditional.

“His continued detention is unconstitutional. He must be released immediately and unconditionally. To convict a citizen under laws that do not exist is not merely a miscarriage of justice — it is the death of legality.

“Nigeria is better than this. Our Constitution demands better than this.

And history will remember who stood for the law, and who stood against it,” the statement added.