‘Show Me the Law’: Lawyer Questions FG’s Reluctance to Defend Kanu’s Conviction

‘Show Me the Law’: Lawyer Questions FG’s Reluctance to Defend Kanu’s Conviction

A lawyer and member of Kanu’s legal consortium has challenged the Federal Government to identify and defend the specific law under which the IPOB leader was convicted, arguing that the government cannot hide behind “public legal illiteracy” to justify a conviction that may have been based on a repealed statute, as Barrister Christopher Chidera, a member of the Global Legal Consortium to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has backed the Okwu-Kanu family’s call for the immediate hearing of Kanu’s pending matters before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, with the challenge stemming from Kanu’s conviction and life sentence on November 20, 2025, by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Chidera based his argument on Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its penalty are defined in a written law, and he questioned the “extant written law” governing the offence and punishment at the time Kanu was convicted, arguing that if the law under which Kanu was convicted had been repealed, reliance on a savings provision could not, on its own, resolve the constitutional question. He emphasized that a savings clause is not a penal statute, does not create the offence, does not prescribe the punishment, and is not, by itself, the written criminal law contemplated by Section 36(12), while explaining that savings provisions generally preserve specified legal consequences, including proceedings, investigations or liabilities, subject to the precise wording of the relevant legislation, and maintaining that such a provision should not be interpreted as automatically transforming a repealed criminal statute into an extant penal law.

The defence team cited Section 97 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (TPPA 2022), which provides for proceedings commenced under repealed legislation to be continued and completed under the 2022 Act, but Chidera maintained that the existence of such a savings provision should not end the constitutional inquiry, asking that if the answer is that a savings provision preserved the old proceedings, the next question remains: where is the extant written law satisfying Section 36(12) under which the conviction itself was entered. He further explained that Section 98(3) of the TPPA 2022 only preserves past actions such as arrests, searches, or charges, but does not preserve a repealed law or authorize a conviction under it, noting that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 was repealed in its entirety by the TPPA 2022, which came into force on May 12, 2022.

READ ALSO:

• Abel Enitan Replaces Walson-Jack as Head of Civil Service as Tinubu Lauds Outgoing HOS
• FG Upgrades Four Lagos Substations, Adds 360MW to Boost Power Supply
• PFIPC Scandal: Tinubu Orders Forensic Probe as ICPC Uncovers Multiple Fake Agencies

Chidera identified questions he believes require judicial determination, including what law was in force when the conviction was entered, what written law defined the offence, and what written law prescribed the punishment, stating that these were not matters of public relations or political rhetoric but legal issues that should be addressed by the courts, and that they are not complicated questions but questions of law. The lawyer recalled that Kanu had raised similar questions during his trial, particularly through the demand, “Show me the law,” and said Kanu was now effectively asking the Court of Appeal to answer the same question, adding that if the Federal Government believes the answer is favourable to it, it should come to court and give that answer.

The Okwu-Kanu family has drawn local and international attention to what it described as the Federal Government’s unwillingness to join issues on proceedings seeking Kanu’s freedom, and in a letter dated August 18, 2026, the family expressed concern over the delay, saying Kanu has written to the Chief Justice of Nigeria and President of the Court of Appeal requesting immediate listing of his cases. The family disclosed that Kanu commenced proceedings before the Supreme Court on November 7, 2025, challenging the legality of the Supreme Court’s remittal judgment of December 15, 2023, and said the Federal Government was duly served but had not filed a substantive response or caused the case to be listed for hearing more than nine months later. Kanu also has a separate appeal before the Court of Appeal challenging his November 20, 2025 conviction and life sentence, with his Appellant’s Brief filed on June 5, 2026, and served on the Federal Government, but the prescribed period for filing the Respondent’s Brief had elapsed without one being filed.

The family based its demand on the Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2022 judgment, which discharged Kanu and quashed the criminal charges against him, and recalled that the Federal Government subsequently obtained a stay of execution on October 28, 2022—just 14 days after the judgment—preventing Kanu from regaining his freedom, stating that fourteen days were enough for a differently constituted panel of a functus officio Court of Appeal to deploy civil procedure against an acquittal-equivalent discharge, and that months cannot now be acceptable merely to list proceedings in which that same man’s liberty is at stake. The family stressed that Kanu was not asking the courts to rule in his favour, but to hear and determine his cases in accordance with the law, adding that if the Federal Government believes the Supreme Court remittal was lawful, it should appear and defend it, and if it believes the conviction and life sentence are lawful, it should file its papers and defend them.

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has claimed that the Federal Government, in its cross-appeal filed in response to Kanu’s appeal, admitted that Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court acted without jurisdiction in convicting and sentencing Kanu, with IPOB spokesman Emma Powerful stating that the government’s cross-appeal expressly admitted that Justice Omotosho acted without jurisdiction when it imposed the sentence of life imprisonment instead of death penalty. The separatist group argued that if the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose sentence, then the same trial court lacked jurisdiction to produce the conviction from which the sentence arose, and stated that any attempt by the Court of Appeal to affirm the conviction while simultaneously accepting the Federal Government’s admission regarding jurisdiction would require the creation of an entirely new species of criminal jurisprudence unknown to Nigeria, unknown to the Commonwealth, and unknown to the common-law world. The family has disclosed plans to formally notify the United States Congress, Israeli Knesset and International Bar Association of what it described as an “unacceptable delay” in the handling of Kanu’s cases, saying the relevant chronology and court records would be presented to the international bodies for consideration.

‘Show Me the Law’: Lawyer Questions FG’s Reluctance to Defend Kanu’s Conviction