.jpeg)
January 12, 2026 l By Stephen — Dalena Reporters
ABUJA, Nigeria — A legal controversy has intensified around the continued detention and conviction of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), with rights activists and defence lawyers accusing the Federal Government of Nigeria of securing his imprisonment under a terrorism statute that, they insist, was repealed years ago.
In a statement issued Monday, Barrister Christopher Chidera, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Defence Consortium, sharply criticised the Nigerian government’s legal tactics, contending that Kanu’s prosecution and conviction were grounded in the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013 a law he says was formally abrogated and replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
Chidera argued that the National Assembly scrapped the 2013 law when it enacted the 2022 terrorism framework, effectively rendering the old law “dead” in legal terms. Under Nigerian constitutional doctrine, he said, repealed statutes cannot be revived or used to convict an accused.
“The National Assembly of Nigeria killed the old terrorism law … under which Nnamdi Kanu was charged and convicted. The trial judge pretended it was still alive even though he knows it’s dead,” Chidera said, adding that this practice violates Section 122(2)(a) of the Evidence Act and undermines basic constitutional requirements.
According to the defence counsel, the trial judge, despite acknowledging the repeal, allegedly failed to apply the current written terrorism statute (TPPA 2022) to Kanu’s case, thereby improperly basing sentencing on a statute no longer in force. Chidera warned that allowing such judicial conduct to stand “poses a serious threat to the rule of law and the safety of all Nigerians” because it effectively empowers courts to “resurrect” obsolete laws at will.
The statement also sharply criticised the National Judicial Council (NJC) and the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), saying both organisations have remained conspicuously silent despite their roles as guardians of legal ethics and constitutional order. Chidera suggested that these bodies were relying on “noisy propaganda” to obscure what he described as an unlawful conviction.
The dispute comes amid broader legal and political controversy surrounding Kanu’s trial and detention. Over recent months, critics have complained that his prosecution continued long after the 2013 terrorism law was repealed, and that the government has persisted in relying on statutes that are either defunct or constitutionally questionable.
IPOB itself has also publicly rejected the legitimacy of Kanu’s conviction and detention, arguing that he has been tried on charges lacking a valid legal basis given the repeal of the earlier terrorism law and the provisions of Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees that no one may be convicted of a crime unless the offence is defined in a written law.
The legal polarisation over Kanu’s case has drawn attention from international rights groups, who have previously highlighted procedural irregularities and the implications of trying an individual under a repealed statute. Observers say the case raises urgent questions about statutory interpretation, judicial independence, and the preservation of constitutional norms in Nigeria’s criminal justice system.