Legal practitioner Christopher Chidera argues that the conviction of the detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, raises constitutional questions over the application of repealed laws and the right to a fair hearing.
A Nigerian legal practitioner, Christopher Chidera, has challenged the legal basis of the conviction and sentencing of Nnamdi Kanu, arguing that the trial court’s reliance on provisions of a repealed terrorism law raises serious constitutional concerns.
In a legal commentary titled “The Jurisprudential Collapse in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu: Why the Judiciary Is Running Scared of Section 36(12),” Chidera questioned the application of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2013 in the case, arguing that the court should have applied the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
The lawyer’s submission centres on Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined, and the penalty prescribed, in a written law.
Chidera argued that the trial court, presided over by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, erred by relying directly on provisions of the 2013 legislation instead of applying the 2022 law.
He maintained that the repeal of an earlier statute raises questions about whether its provisions can continue to provide the legal basis for a conviction and sentence, despite savings clauses intended to preserve certain liabilities and pending proceedings.
Lawyer Questions Application of Savings Clause
The legal practitioner specifically questioned the interpretation of Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act, arguing that provisions preserving existing liabilities and pending proceedings should not automatically be treated as authority to impose punishment under repealed legislation.
According to him, the constitutional requirement for a valid written-law basis for a criminal conviction must be distinguished from statutory provisions designed to prevent ongoing proceedings from terminating solely because of a legislative repeal.
Chidera also referred to Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act, contending that the provisions required the trial court to take account of the transition to the replacement legislation.
He argued that the court’s alleged failure to apply the relevant provisions could undermine the constitutional validity of the conviction and sentence.
Cites Supreme Court Precedents
Chidera also disputed arguments that citing a repealed law in criminal proceedings can be treated as a harmless error.
He referenced Supreme Court decisions, including Adonike v. State, Ogbomor v. State and Awosika v. IGP, arguing that the cases do not necessarily support upholding a conviction where the trial court expressly relies on repealed provisions as the substantive basis for conviction and sentencing.
According to his interpretation, the distinction lies between an error in citing a law on a charge sheet and a situation in which a court relies directly on repealed provisions to convict and sentence a defendant.
He maintained that the cited precedents should not be used to justify a conviction where, in his view, the applicable replacement legislation was not properly applied.
The interpretation advanced in the legal commentary, however, would require examination alongside the full judgments and the relevant statutory savings and transitional provisions to determine its legal validity.
Calls Attention to Appeal and Fair Hearing
The lawyer argued that the Court of Appeal faces a significant legal question in determining whether the trial court’s decision can stand.
He outlined two possible approaches: setting aside the conviction if the appellate court finds that it lacks a valid statutory foundation, or considering whether the relevant provisions of the 2022 Act can legally sustain the decision.
Chidera cautioned that an appellate court’s attempt to substitute a different statutory basis for the conviction could raise fair-hearing concerns if the defendant had not been given an adequate opportunity to address the alternative legal basis.
He cited Sections 36(1) and 36(6)(a) of the Constitution, which protect the right to a fair hearing and the right of an accused person to be informed promptly of the nature of the offence.
Demands Constitutional Scrutiny
Concluding his commentary, Chidera called for closer judicial scrutiny of the relationship between statutory repeal, savings provisions and the constitutional requirements governing criminal convictions.
He argued that allowing convictions and sentences to stand on the basis of repealed penal provisions without properly addressing the applicable replacement law could weaken the protection guaranteed by Section 36(12) of the Constitution.
The legal practitioner maintained that the central question is whether the trial court had a valid and applicable written-law basis for the conviction and sentence at the time judgment was delivered.
His position represents a legal argument on the case. The ultimate determination depends on the relevant court decisions, the applicable statutory provisions and the findings of the appellate courts.