The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium wishes to brief the Nigerian public, the legal community, and the international community on the fundamental constitutional and statutory defects inherent in the judgment delivered on 20 November 2025 by Hon. Justice James Omotosho in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu.
Our position is not political.
It is grounded in black-letter law, constitutional supremacy, and established jurisprudence.
1. The Court Convicted Under a Law That No Longer Exists
Justice Omotosho anchored his decision on the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013.
However, Section 104 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022 expressly repeals the 2013 Act in its entirety.
A repealed law is void.
It cannot be revived.
No conviction can legally stand upon it.
The Constitution is unequivocal.
Section 36(12) provides:
> No person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law.
A “written law” must be in force at the time of conviction.
On 20 November 2025, the 2013 Act was no longer law.
This alone renders the judgment a nullity.
2. Savings Clauses Cannot Resurrect Repealed Criminal Statutes
The Prosecution relied on a transitional “savings clause” within the 2022 Act.
But savings clauses:
preserve ongoing proceedings,
do not override the Constitution,
do not revive repealed statutes, and
do not validate charges under a dead law.
More importantly:
The Court of Appeal’s judgment of 13 October 2022 discharged Kanu and terminated all prior proceedings.
Therefore, after the discharge, there was no pending proceeding capable of being “saved.”
The 2023 revival was a new proceeding, and it cannot legally be rooted in a repealed statute.
3. The 2022 TPPA Narrowed the Definition of Terrorism and Protects Non-Violent Political Expression
The Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022—the only valid statute—significantly redefines terrorism in Nigeria.
Key changes:
Terrorism now must involve violence, grievous harm, or destruction of property.
The Act expressly excludes non-violent advocacy, protests, and political expression.
The allegations against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu relate to:
broadcasts,
advocacy,
political agitation.
These do not qualify as terrorism under the 2022 Act.
Additionally, Section 36(8) of the Constitution requires courts to apply the lighter or more favourable law where criminal statutes change.
Justice Omotosho failed to apply the extant, more protective 2022 Act.
4. The Judgment Collapses Under Multiple Constitutional Violations
By convicting under a repealed law and ignoring the controlling statute, the judgment violates:
Section 1(3) – Supremacy of the Constitution
Section 36(8) – Application of lighter law
Section 36(9) – No double jeopardy
Section 36(12) – No conviction without a valid written law
A court devoid of jurisdiction cannot produce a valid judgment.
This is not a technicality; it strikes at the foundation of criminal justice in Nigeria.
5. The Position of the Defence
We therefore state, unequivocally:
The judgment is void,
It is unconstitutional,
It is unsustainable in law, and
It will not survive appellate review.
A Notice of Appeal is being filed.
The grounds of appeal will rely on:
constitutional supremacy,
statutory repeal,
the doctrine of nullity, and
mandatory application of the TPPA 2022.
We remain confident that the appellate courts will restore legality, uphold the Constitution, and vacate this defective and jurisdictionally void conviction.
![[BREAKING NEWS]:Nigerians In Trouble As Leaked Documents Reveals Tinubu’s Agreement with Controversial Business Tycoon](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj39gfKFg8aZ2Pq_eoxzYPY7vQoQB4vJQ5iXjbzlb028e9rhOqJn7LU834VyPOGJO6KMqyY25tdbE8_AbZYrvJ2A-MPe77GnAXXTxKlCpcHy3Xmrpk5voaOwmC_bUYUoWrh8i8Vya7_odsgKRhByqzF7mVi_H-AQTn3iV_Yo1GkZhLibfcuztuBuz3XE4xS/w680/IMG_9371.jpeg)
