By Christopher Chidera Esq.,
Fellow Nigerians, many people are confused about this matter. The strongest and purest argument in the appeal is not about “savings clauses being useless” or “repeal killing all cases automatically.” Those are distractions. The real case rests on something much simpler and more fundamental.
1. The old law was repealed – that is a plain fact
The Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 (TPAA 2013) was repealed by the National Assembly through the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 (TPPA 2022).
Nobody disputes this.
However, when Mazi Nnamdi Kanu repeatedly raised the repeal issue on 23 October and 4, 5, 7 and 20 November 2025, Justice Omotosho refused to formally take judicial notice of the repeal despite being specifically invited to do so under Section 122 of the Evidence Act.
Instead, the court repeatedly proceeded on an "assuming without conceding" basis.
The result was that the court never properly carried out the judicial-notice exercise necessary to determine what written law was actually in force for the purpose of conviction under Section 36(12) of the Constitution.
2. The savings clause kept the case alive – and the appeal accepts this
Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act is a savings clause. It protects ongoing cases, rights, and liabilities when a law is repealed. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s appeal does not fight this point. The case could continue.
3. But a savings clause is not the criminal law itself
Here is the key misunderstanding, explained simply:
A savings clause keeps the case moving.
It does not define any crime.
It does not prescribe any punishment.
It is not the law you can convict someone under.
4. The Constitution is very clear: Section 36(12)
Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution says that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and the punishment prescribed in a written law in force at the time.
A repealed law is not a written law in force on 20 November 2025, the date of conviction.
Section 6 of the Interpretation Act confirms that repeal does not automatically destroy pending proceedings, rights, obligations, or liabilities. Those matters may continue where preserved by a savings clause.
But preserving a proceeding is not the same thing as preserving the repealed statute itself as a living penal law.
A savings clause may preserve the case.
A savings clause may preserve liabilities.
A savings clause may preserve rights and obligations.
What it does not do is define an offence or prescribe a punishment.
That is why the question remains: What written law in force on 20 November 2025 defined the offences and prescribed the punishments for which Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was convicted?
5. The court had a duty to take judicial notice
This was the court’s own legal duty. On those dates, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu specifically invited the court to take judicial notice of the repeal. Under Section 122 of the Evidence Act, courts must take judicial notice of all laws in force in Nigeria, including repeals. They do not need extra proof – they are required to know it and apply it.
Justice Omotosho skipped this. He flatly refused and used “assuming without conceding” instead. He never properly identified the exact written law in force that allowed the conviction.
6. The simple question Justice Omotosho never answered
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu kept asking: “Show me the law.”
Not: Show me the savings clause.
Not: Show me the old law that was repealed.
Not: Show me that the case continued.
But: Show me the written law in force on 20 November 2025 that defines the offence and prescribes the punishment.
The judgment leaned on the savings clause but never clearly pointed to the specific offence-creating sections of the current 2022 Act. That question was left unanswered.
7. What the Court of Appeal must do now
The Court of Appeal must now answer the question that remained unresolved at the trial court.
It must identify the written law that was in force on 20 November 2025 and that defined the offences and prescribed the punishments for which Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was convicted.
If such a law can be clearly identified, the Court can say so.
If such a law cannot be identified, then the Court must confront the constitutional implications of Section 36(12).
The question is simple: What written law in force on 20 November 2025 authorised the conviction?
Conclusion
This appeal is not about whether the case survived repeal.
Everyone agrees it did.
This appeal is about whether the law used to convict survived repeal.
That is the question Mazi Nnamdi Kanu asked from the beginning.
That is the question Justice Omotosho never answered.
And that is the question the Court of Appeal must now answer.
SHOW ME THE LAW.
