By Our Reporter
ABUJA (PRECISE POST) – The legal team of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has insisted that his recent conviction by a Federal High Court in Abuja “cannot stand in law,” accusing the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho, of relying on a repealed statute to secure the verdict.
Kanu was convicted on terrorism-related charges last month, but his lawyers say the judgment is incurably defective because it was anchored on provisions of the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, rather than the extant Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
In a statement issued on Thursday, the lead global defence consortium, Njoku Jude Njoku, Esq., described the ruling as “judicial rascality taken too far,” insisting that the court ignored explicit legislative directives.
“A dead law cannot be used to try or convict any citizen. The National Assembly repealed the 2013 Act three years ago. What Justice Omotosho has done is to breathe life into a corpse,” Njoku declared.
Njoku cited Section 97 of the 2022 Act, which mandates that “any investigation, trial or legal proceeding commenced under the repealed Act shall be continued and completed under the provisions of this Act.” According to him, the section leaves no room for discretion.
“Section 97 is clear and commanding. It says the trial shall continue under the new law — not may, not might. The judge had no authority to pretend that the old law still existed,” he stated.
He accused the trial court of misinterpreting Section 98(3), which preserves past investigative steps but does not authorise future convictions under the repealed law.
“Section 98(3) simply saves earlier steps taken — arrests, filed charges, seized materials. It does not resurrect a dead statute. No court, not even the Supreme Court, can do that,” he added.
According to Njoku, the court’s reliance on the repealed law was deliberate and politically motivated.
“What happened on 20th November was not a trial — it was a script. It was predetermined. The court chose convenience over law and politics over justice,” he alleged.
Njoku warned that allowing the ruling to stand would set a dangerous precedent for the justice system.
“If this judgment is allowed to survive, then tomorrow any Nigerian can be convicted under a non-existent law. That is how tyranny begins,” he said.
He urged Nigerians to “read the law and demand accountability,” insisting that public ignorance strengthens judicial abuse.
“Ignorance is fuel for tyranny. Nigerians must read Section 97 and Section 98(3) themselves. A judiciary that obeys one part of the law and discards the other is not a judiciary — it is a conspiracy against the people,” he said.
The defence team confirmed that it has filed an appeal and expressed confidence that the Court of Appeal would overturn the conviction.
“We trust that the higher courts will correct this embarrassing distortion of the law. But even if they do not, history has already taken note of what happened in broad daylight,” Njoku added.
