By Our Reporter
A member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium, Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., has challenged the legal foundation of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s conviction, arguing that the judgment was based on a law that had already been repealed.
Ifedi, in a legal briefing issued on Friday, August 21, 2026, said the case raises fundamental constitutional questions concerning the law applicable to Kanu’s plea, trial and eventual conviction.
He questioned whether an extant written penal law was in force at the time of Kanu’s fresh plea and trial capable of supporting the offences for which he was convicted.
According to him, the central issue revolves around the interpretation of the transitional and savings provisions of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 (TPPA).
Ifedi argued that while a savings clause may preserve pending proceedings following the repeal of an earlier law, it cannot independently create a criminal offence or prescribe a punishment.
He specifically referred to Section 98(3) of the TPPA, which provides for pending proceedings to continue despite the repeal of previous legislation.
However, he said Section 97 of the Act was more significant because it provides that proceedings pending before a court “shall be continued under this Act.”
The lawyer argued that the provision was mandatory and required proceedings affected by the repeal to continue under the TPPA.
He linked the provision to Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution, which provides that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and penalty are prescribed in a written law.
Ifedi maintained that the combined effect of Section 36(12) of the Constitution and Section 97 of the TPPA meant that Kanu’s conviction ought to have been based on the TPPA rather than the repealed Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act (TPAA).
He said the issue became particularly significant because Kanu’s plea and subsequent trial were conducted afresh on March 29, 2025.
“The plea was taken anew. The trial was conducted anew. The conviction was entered anew,” he said.
According to him, the TPAA had already been repealed when the proceedings commenced afresh, making its continued application to the conviction legally questionable.
Lawyer Raises Issue Over State v. Egigia
Ifedi also drew attention to Justice James Omotosho’s reliance on the decision in State v. Egigia (2024).
He said the judgment recognised the principle that a repealed statute no longer has legal life, arguing that the principle raises questions about the subsequent reliance on the repealed legislation in Kanu’s case.
He described the alleged contradiction as one of the key issues requiring determination by the appellate courts.
The lawyer stressed that the matter should not be dismissed as a mere technicality, insisting that it concerns the constitutional requirements governing criminal convictions.
Questions for Appellate Courts
Ifedi raised two major questions for the judiciary.
First, he questioned why Kanu was allegedly convicted under a repealed law despite the constitutional requirement that criminal offences and penalties must be prescribed by written law.
Second, he asked why Section 97 of the TPPA, which states that pending proceedings “shall be continued under this Act,” was allegedly not applied.
He argued that the answers to these questions would be critical in determining whether the conviction can withstand appellate scrutiny.
Appeal Proceedings
The briefing also criticised what Ifedi described as delays by the Federal Government in responding to Kanu’s pending appeals.
He claimed that Kanu’s appeal before the Court of Appeal had been filed but that the government’s response was overdue.
He further claimed that a challenge concerning the Supreme Court’s remittal decision, filed in November 2025, had yet to receive a response or be listed for determination.
Ifedi contrasted the alleged delays with the speed with which the government had previously pursued legal proceedings relating to Kanu’s detention.
He argued that the alleged failure to respond to the pending challenges had heightened questions surrounding the legal foundation of the conviction.
Three Possible Outcomes
Ifedi said the appellate courts would ultimately have to confront the constitutional and statutory issues raised by the case.
He identified three possible outcomes: upholding the conviction, quashing it, or adopting another interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.
He said each option would carry significant implications for the Nigerian justice system, particularly concerning the relationship between repealed legislation, transitional provisions and constitutional safeguards.
The legal practitioner concluded that the Kanu case had become a major test of constitutional compliance, judicial integrity and the rule of law.
He called on the appellate courts to determine whether the conviction complied with Section 36(12) of the Constitution and the transitional provisions of the TPPA.
