At the time Kanu committed the offences for which he was tried and convicted, the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 was still in force.
Characteristically rambunctious, Nnamdi Kanu, in his usual noisy and unruly manner, verbally claimed in court that Justice James Omotosho tried him under a repealed (an old) law.
Besides that, in a filed preliminary objection to the trial, he urged the court to set him free on this ground.
The law Kanu referred to is the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013. This law amended the Terrorism Prevention Act 2011, but it was later replaced by the Terrorism Prevention Act 2022. Truly, Section 36(12) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) provides that no one shall be convicted of any offence under a non-existent law.
Indeed, the law under which Kanu was tried and convicted no longer exists.
But wait for this:
At the time Kanu committed the offences for which he was tried and convicted, the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 was still in force. His offences were committed between 2018 and 2021. The now-repealed law was the applicable law during that period.
The new Terrorism Prevention Act 2022 cannot be applied retroactively. You cannot charge, try, or convict someone under a law that did not exist at the time an alleged offence took place.
Do you understand? Let’s move on.
Now, Section 98 of the new terrorism law states that all regulations, orders, court cases, etc., filed under a repealed law can continue to remain in force as if the new law had not been made. This means that Kanu was correctly being tried, since his case began before the old law was replaced.
I hope you understand. There is one more thing: the Supreme Court had previously ruled, in an appeal filed by the Federal Government, that although some of the counts against Kanu were filed under the 2013 Amendment Act, he was properly and validly arraigned before the trial court.
These were the bases for the judge’s decision to continue with the case against Kanu.
So you see, rather than amplify the ignorance displayed by Kanu, educate yourself on the actual position of the law.
Kanu has decided to appeal the judgement. It will be interesting to read what arguments he will present at the Court of Appeal against the trial court’s decision on this repealed law issue.