By Anamati Inyang | RISMADAR Blog | November 7, 2025
In a dramatic session at the Federal High Court, Abuja, detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, firmly declared that the court cannot legally convict him, arguing that the charge against him is based on laws that are no longer valid.
Kanu told the court that the prosecution’s reliance on the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 and the Customs and Excise Management Act Cap C45 LFN 2004 -both of which he says have been repealed -means the charge against him “discloses no triable offence known to law.”
He further argued that under Section 36(12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, no person may be convicted of an offence not defined in a written law in force at the time of commission. Based on this, he urged the court to strike out the charge and order his immediate release.
During the hearing, the court foreclosed Kanu’s defence after he failed to open his case within the allotted time and scheduled judgment for November 20 2025.
Prosecution counsel opposed the motion, arguing that Kanu was represented by counsel throughout the trial and that his defence team had been given ample opportunity. The court, in its ruling, held that although the right to fair hearing is constitutional, it cannot be compelled; if the defendant waives that right by acting in a manner inconsistent with its exercise, the court may proceed.
Kanu’s stance raises key legal questions around jurisdiction, validity of charges and the proper use of repealed laws in criminal prosecutions. His lawyers maintain that the entire proceeding is void ab initio meaning from the start if the law upon which the charge is based is invalid.
As the November 20 date looms, all eyes will be on how the court interprets these compelling constitutional arguments and whether this will shape future litigation around the use of repealed statutes in Nigeria’s criminal justice system.
