A legal analysis by Abuja-based human rights lawyer, Njoku Jude Njoku, has questioned the validity of the recent judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in the case of Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu. Njoku argues that the court misapplied the provisions of the Terrorism ( Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, particularly Sections 97 and 98(3), in a manner he describes as “intellectually dishonest” and “legally untenable.”
In a comprehensive statement issued in Abuja on 4 December 2025, the lawyer insists that the judge wrongly relied on Section 98(3) to justify the continued application of the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, despite the clear directive in Section 97 that all pending terrorism matters must transition to the 2022 Act.
“The Law Is Unambiguous; The Court Pretended Otherwise” — Njoku
Njoku maintains that Section 97 of the 2022 Act leaves no room for judicial discretion. The provision expressly states:
> “Any investigation, trial or any other legal proceedings commenced under the repealed Act shall… be continued and completed under the provisions of this Act…”
The lawyer emphasises the operative word “shall”, noting that the National Assembly intended compulsory migration of every ongoing terrorism case to the new statute.
According to him, Justice Omotosho ignored this mandatory directive, choosing instead to apply portions of the repealed 2013 law to sustain counts that no longer exist within the updated legislative framework.
The Controversy Over Section 98(3)
Njoku describes the judge’s reliance on Section 98(3) as a misinterpretation of the provision. He clarifies that savings clauses, such as Section 98(3), preserve procedural steps already taken — including arrests, filings, and exhibits — but do not revive a repealed law for the purpose of securing fresh convictions.
He explains:
Section 97: Mandates that all ongoing trials must be concluded under the 2022 Act.
Section 98(3): Ensures prior actions carried out under the old law remain valid.
“These sections complement each other,” Njoku argues. “Justice Omotosho made them appear contradictory to justify a predetermined outcome.”
He describes the reasoning as “statutory vandalism” and warns that no court, including the Supreme Court, can resurrect a repealed statute.
Critical Questions Raised
Njoku urges Nigerians to interrogate the implications of the court’s reasoning:
1. Can a judge rely on Section 98(3) while disregarding Section 97 of the same Act?
2. If the 2013 law was still ‘extant,’ what purpose does Section 97 serve?
3. Why would the National Assembly repeal the old Act and order migration to the 2022 law, only for a judge to resurrect obsolete provisions?
He argues that the answers reveal a troubling pattern: “The repealed law is dead, and cannot be invoked to convict any Nigerian in 2025.”
“20 November 2025 Was Not a Trial — It Was a Scripted Performance”
Njoku characterises the proceedings before Justice Omotosho as a “choreographed” and “pre-arranged” exercise designed to sustain detention at all costs.
He insists that the court’s failure to demand fresh, properly framed charges under the 2022 Act demonstrates a deliberate attempt to avoid statutory compliance.
A Warning to Nigerians
The lawyer warns that silent acceptance of judicial inconsistencies poses grave dangers to all citizens:
individuals may be convicted under laws repealed years earlier,
offences previously abolished may be resurrected through judicial discretion,
and statutory safeguards may become meaningless.
“An ignorant population is the judiciary’s best ally,” Njoku says, urging the public to read and understand the relevant provisions of the Act.
The Appeal
Njoku confirms that the legal team representing Nnamdi Kanu has already filed an appeal and is confident that the Court of Appeal and, if necessary, the Supreme Court will overturn the ruling.
“History is recording every detail of what is happening,” he concludes. “Enough is enough.”
![[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)
