•Convicted IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu
A member of the legal defence team of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, Njoku Jude Njoku, Esq. has accused the Nigerian judiciary of “fighting itself” and drifting toward “constitutional anarchy” over its handling of Kanu’s ongoing trial.
The lawyer in a statement today faulted the Federal High Court for allegedly conducting a criminal trial under a law he said had been repealed by the National Assembly.
He condemned the conviction of Kanu who was a few weeks ago sentenced by the Federal High Court in Abuja presided over by Justice James Omotosho to life imprisonment, reports Daily Independent.
But according to the lawyer, the court’s reliance on the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 (TPAA), to convict Kanu, despite its repeal by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 (TPPA), represents “a constitutional earthquake and a direct assault on the rule of law.
“One does not ‘assume’ a repeal. One acknowledges it as a matter of law,” Njoku said, pointing out that, “The judge’s phrase, ‘assuming, without conceding, that the TPAA is repealed,’ is not just legally untenable — it nullifies the entire proceedings.”
The lawyer insisted that under Nigerian law, a repealed statute “cannot sustain ongoing proceedings,” citing decisions of the Supreme Court in NNPC v. Fawehinmi and Abacha v. Fawehinmi.
He argued that the Evidence Act makes it mandatory for courts to take judicial notice of all enacted laws and that failure to do so renders a case void.
“The Evidence Act makes it mandatory for courts to take judicial notice of all enacted laws. Failure to do so does not weaken proceedings – it nullifies them,” he said.
He added that case law is “overwhelmingly settled” that savings clauses, including Section 98(3) of the TPPA, cannot revive a dead statute.
“Savings clauses preserve past liabilities, not jurisdiction. They do not and have never resurrected dead statutes,” he asserted.
Njoku referenced AG Lagos v. Dosunmu, Uwaifo v. AG Bendel, and Afolabi v. Governor of Osun State, arguing that the court’s reliance on the repealed TPAA “defies centuries of legal understanding.”
He warned that if such reasoning is upheld, “a future court could try someone under the 1979 Constitution, a 1998 military decree or even a colonial ordinance.”
The defence lawyer also criticised the Supreme Court’s December 2023 judgment, which appeared to describe the repealed TPAA and the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA) as “extant”.
“That single per incuriam line has now become a shield for judicial stubbornness,” he said.
“But even the Supreme Court cannot breathe life into a dead law. If there was an error, the remedy is clarification — not perpetuation,” he added.
According to Njoku, the implications of the court’s handling of Kanu’s case extend beyond the IPOB leader and into the heart of Nigeria’s legal system.
“This is not about sympathy for Nnamdi Kanu. This is about what kind of judiciary Nigerians want,” he said.
He stressed that, “If a judge can ignore the Constitution, the Evidence Act, binding precedents and an extant federal law, then every Nigerian citizen is vulnerable.”
He warned that allowing a repealed law to be used in 2024 could set a dangerous precedent. “If a court can try Kanu under a 2013 law repealed in 2022, then tomorrow someone could be tried under the 1979 Constitution, a 1998 military decree or a colonial ordinance. The absurdity speaks for itself.”
Njoku further argued that the court’s insistence on applying the repealed law “is driven by institutional ego, not legal merit.”
He argued that, “Admitting the mistake would unravel the entire trial and embarrass the judicial establishment. And nothing terrifies the Nigerian judiciary more than public embarrassment.”
He claimed that instead of correcting the alleged error, “the system doubles down,” leaving Kanu “in solitary confinement, with deteriorating health, because the court prefers stubbornness over justice.”
“A judiciary that refuses to obey its own laws is not a court of justice — it is a court of convenience,” he said.
“If this judicial experiment is allowed to settle into our legal framework, Nigeria will wake up one day to find that repeals no longer matter, jurisdiction no longer matters, and due process is whatever a judge says it is.”
“That is the road to judicial anarchy. And Nigeria has suffered enough,” he added.
