Abuja, 21 November 2025 – The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, was yesterday sentenced to life imprisonment by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, following his conviction on seven counts of terrorism-related offences. The verdict, delivered after a protracted trial marked by multiple judicial changes and heated legal arguments, has reignited controversy over the application of repealed legislation and the implications of a near-de novo proceeding.
Kanu, who has been in detention since his controversial rendition from Kenya in June 2021, refused to present a defence, insisting that the charges against him were founded on the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 – a law repealed and replaced by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. Prosecutors closed their case after calling only five witnesses, relying heavily on audio broadcasts from Radio Biafra allegedly inciting violence and separatism.
In his ruling, Justice Omotosho rejected Kanu’s objections, holding that saving provisions in the 2022 Act preserved pending proceedings initiated under the old law. The judge tempered justice with mercy by opting for life imprisonment rather than the death penalty sought by the prosecution, citing Kanu’s lack of remorse but invoking Christian principles of forgiveness.
Yet legal experts and Kanu’s supporters argue that the conviction may be constitutionally flawed, pointing to the trial’s effective restart before a new judge – a scenario that, under Nigerian law, could invalidate reliance on a repealed statute.
A Trial Restarted: The Perils of Judge Changes and Fresh Pleas
Kanu’s case has seen extraordinary judicial turnover, with four judges presiding over its decade-long course. The most recent shift occurred earlier this year when Justice Binta Nyako recused herself following Kanu’s loss of confidence in her impartiality. The matter was reassigned to Justice Omotosho, necessitating Kanu’s re-arraignment on 21 March 2025 and a fresh plea – hallmarks of a de novo trial rather than a seamless continuation.
Under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, full trials de novo are discouraged upon judicial changes to prevent undue delay and hardship to accused persons. However, historical practice under the repealed Criminal Procedure Act often led to partial or complete restarts, including fresh pleas before the new judge.
Legal commentators contend that a fresh plea effectively commences new proceedings. When coupled with a repealed substantive law – as in Kanu’s case – this triggers profound consequences. Courts have consistently held that saving clauses in repealing statutes apply only to genuine continuations of original proceedings, not to fresh arraignments or de novo trials. As one senior advocate noted anonymously, “There is no recorded instance in Nigerian jurisprudence where a conviction under a fully repealed criminal law has been upheld following a fresh plea and restarted hearing.”
Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution reinforces this: no person may be convicted of an offence unless it is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law in force at the time of trial. A repealed statute, critics argue, ceases to be a “written law” capable of sustaining criminal liability once proceedings restart afresh.
The Repealed Law Conundrum in Kanu’s Case
The charges against Kanu stem from alleged broadcasts between 2018 and 2021, laid under the 2013 Amendment Act. That law was comprehensively repealed in May 2022, months before the Supreme Court’s December 2022 directive remitting the case for trial and years before Kanu’s March 2025 re-arraignment before Justice Omotosho.
Defence counsel had repeatedly urged the court to take judicial notice of the repeal, arguing that continuing under a “dead” law rendered the proceedings a nullity ab initio. They cited binding authorities emphasising that saving clauses do not “revive” repealed enactments for new trials. If the conduct remains criminal under the 2022 Act, the proper course – per established principle – is for the prosecution to file fresh charges under the extant law, allowing the accused to benefit from any decriminalisation or lighter penalties (the principle of lenity).
Justice Omotosho, however, interpreted the saving clause in the 2022 Act broadly, preserving the validity of pre-repeal charges. Critics maintain this overlooks the de novo character of the trial post-reassignment.
Appeal Looming as Defence Vows to Challenge “Void” Conviction
Kanu’s legal team, led by Aloy Ejimakor, immediately signalled an appeal, describing the verdict as “politically orchestrated” and constitutionally unsustainable. Family members who visited Kanu in detention reported him defiant, questioning how a judge could convict under a non-existent law.
Igbo elders, civil society groups, and international observers have condemned the outcome as selective justice, contrasting Kanu’s fate with the amnesty granted to certain repentant insurgents. IPOB rejected the judgment outright, insisting agitation is not terrorism.
As Kanu heads to the Court of Appeal – and potentially the Supreme Court – the case may yet clarify the boundaries of saving clauses when trials effectively begin anew after judicial recusal and legislative repeal. For now, the life sentence stands as a stark reminder of the tensions between constitutional safeguards and the exigencies of high-profile prosecutions.
