NBA hoping propaganda will bury illegalities in Nnamdi Kanu’s conviction – Lawyer
The Controversy Surrounding Nnamdi Kanu’s Conviction
The Nigerian legal landscape is currently embroiled in a heated debate following the conviction of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). While the government views the judgment as a victory for national security, prominent legal voices are sounding the alarm, alleging that the entire judicial process was built on a foundation of “dead laws” and “illegalities.”
Barrister Christopher Chidera, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Defence Consortium, has come forward with explosive claims. According to Chidera, the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) are maintaining a strategic silence, hoping that the “noisy propaganda” surrounding the high-profile case will bury the fundamental legal errors committed during the trial.
The “Dead Law” Argument: TPAA vs. TPPA
At the heart of this legal storm is the specific legislation used to convict the IPOB leader. Chidera asserts that Kanu was prosecuted and sentenced under the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act (TPAA) of 2013. However, the National Assembly repealed this law in 2022, replacing it with the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act (TPPA) of 2022.
In legal terms, when a law is repealed, it is effectively “dead.” According to Section 122(2)(a) of the Evidence Act, a judge is legally obligated to recognize when a law has been scrapped. Chidera argues that the trial judge acted outside the law by using a defunct statute to secure a conviction.
“The trial judge pretended it was still alive even though he knows it’s dead,” Chidera stated, describing the act as a “deliberate bending of the law.”
The Failure of a “Smooth Transition”
One of the most striking allegations made by the defence is that the court failed to transition the case to the new legal framework. While the trial judge reportedly mentioned ensuring a “smooth transition” from the old 2013 law to the 2022 law, the defence claims this never happened in practice.
Legal experts point out that for a trial to be constitutionally sound:
- The charges must align with the current written law.
- The trial procedures must follow the most recent parliamentary rules.
- Any punishment must be derived from the law in force at the time of the final decision.
By allegedly ignoring the 2022 Act and sticking to the 2013 version, the court has been accused of committing “fraud in a robe.”
The Silence of the NJC and NBA
Perhaps more concerning to the legal community than the conviction itself is the perceived complicity of Nigeria’s foremost legal institutions. The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the National Judicial Council (NJC) are the watchdogs of the Nigerian temple of justice. Their silence on whether a judge can resurrect a dead law to jail a citizen has raised eyebrows.
Chidera warns that if these institutions allow this precedent to stand, the Nigerian Constitution becomes little more than a “decoration.” He argues that if a judge can ignore the will of Parliament by using repealed laws, then no Nigerian is truly safe from judicial overreach.
The Broader Implications for Nigeria’s Judiciary
This case transcends the individual person of Nnamdi Kanu. It touches on the very core of the rule of law in Nigeria. If the judiciary is seen to be manipulating statutes to achieve political or state ends, it erodes public trust in the entire system.
The defence consortium insists that this is a battle of “Law versus Lawlessness.” They argue that today it is a high-profile figure like Kanu, but tomorrow, the same legal shortcuts could be used against any Nigerian citizen. The demand is clear: a return to constitutional adherence and a rejection of propaganda as a tool for judicial legitimacy.
Leave a Reply