21/08/2026
PUBLIC LEGAL BRIEFING
THE JUDICIARY'S SHAME: A REPEALED LAW, A SAVINGS CLAUSE, AND A CONVICTION BUILT ON SAND
Date: 21st August, 2026.
— A Legal Reckoning Awaits Nigeria's Bench and Bar
The Nigerian judiciary and the Federal Government stand on the precipice of an indelible disgrace. The case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has laid bare a constitutional crisis so profound that it threatens the very foundation of the Nigerian legal system.
We are not speaking of technicalities. We are speaking of elementary law—the kind taught in the first year of any law faculty. And yet, the judiciary has failed the most basic test: identifying a valid law.
THE UNANSWERED QUESTION:
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu asked a simple, direct question:
"Where is the extant written penal statute covering my plea, my trial, and my conviction?"
To this day, no one has answered.
Instead, a supposed learned judge—Justice Omotosho—pointed to a savings clause. Let that sink in. A savings clause. A procedural provision that merely says "proceedings shall continue."
Where, when, and who told Justice Omotosho that a savings clause is a substitute for an extant written and subsisting law? Let him—or any legal practitioner—point to the law or legal textbook that supports this absurdity. Ignorance is not an excuse. The law does not forgive a judge who does not know the law.
Where in the English language or law dictionary—or in any language—does a savings clause become a penal enactment?
Where in the Constitution—the supreme governing law in Nigeria—does a savings clause define an offence or prescribe a punishment?
It does not.
THE SAVINGS FICTION EXPOSED: "AS IF THIS LAW HAD NOT BEEN MADE"
This is where the corrupt judiciary latches on to perpetrate evil.
Section 98(3) of the TPPA 2022 says:
"Notwithstanding the repeal... any proceedings pending... shall be continued... as if this Act had not been made. "
To a lay mind, the confusion is understandable: "If it continues as if the new law had not been made, why shouldn't the previous repealed charges survive?"
But here is the problem:
The matter did not continue from where it stopped. It started de novo—afresh, from scratch—on 29 March 2025. The plea was taken anew. The trial was conducted anew. The conviction was entered anew.
And the Constitution is clear: conviction must be under a law currently in force.
Section 36(12) demands that the offence and penalty be prescribed in a written law in force at the time of conviction.
Section 97 of the TPPA—the Transitional Clause—commands that proceedings pending at the time of repeal shall be continued under the TPPA.
Read it yourself:
Section 97: "Proceedings pending before any court of law... shall be continued under this Act."
That is mandatory. It is not optional. It is not discretionary. It is the law.
So here is the inescapable legal chain:
Section 98(3) saves the case—the proceedings—from abating.
Section 97 commands that the proceedings shall be continued under the TPPA.
Section 36(12) of the Constitution commands that conviction must be under a written law currently in force—which is the TPPA.
Therefore, the conviction of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu MUST be under the TPPA but it was not.
THE TWO QUESTIONS NIGERIA CANNOT RUN FROM
QUESTION ONE:
Why did Justice Omotosho defy the Constitution—the highest law in Nigeria—to convict under a repealed law?
QUESTION TWO:
Why did Justice Omotosho ignore mandatory Section 97, which commands that proceedings "shall be continued under this Act"—the TPPA?
These are not academic questions.
These are not technicalities.
These are questions of judicial integrity. These are questions of constitutional fidelity. These are questions of criminal justice.
And Nigeria cannot run from them.
THE OMOTOSHO SELF-INDICTMENT
Here is the most damning evidence of all—Justice Omotosho convicted himself out of his own mouth.
In his judgment, he declared:
"No written law, no conviction."
He cited State v. Egigia (2024) and underlined the rule:
"A repealed statute has no more legal life. It is a nullity."
He knew the law. He stated the law. He underlined the law. Then he convicted under the same repealed law.
That is not a legal error. That is judicial fraud.
By his own words, there was no written law. By his own words, there was no conviction. His judgment is a nullity.
THE TWO PILLARS OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
The law is clear in State v. Egigia:
Criminal jurisdiction rests on two independent pillars:
· Pillar One: The law must have been in force when the alleged conduct occurred.
· Pillar Two: The law must still be in force at the time of trial, plea, and conviction.
Both must stand. If either collapses, jurisdiction collapses.
Yes, the TPAA existed in 2013–2022. Nobody disputes Pillar One. But the trial and the de novo plea occurred on 29 March 2025, when the TPAA had been repealed.
Pillar Two collapsed completely. A dead statute cannot sustain a living prosecution.
Section 97 commanded the proceedings to move to the TPPA. Justice Omotosho refused.
Why?
THE GOVERNMENT IN FLIGHT: NIGERIA RUNNING FROM ITS OWN COURTS
The government's silence confirms the rot:
· Court of Appeal: Kanu's appeal filed. Government's brief overdue. No response.
· Supreme Court: Challenge to remittal filed November 2025. Nine months. No response. Not listed.
In 2022, they secured a stay in 14 days to keep Kanu in detention.
Now, they file nothing to answer for it.
They were in a hurry to convict. They are running from accountability.
Why?
Because they know the conviction cannot survive legal scrutiny.
They built it on sand. And now the tide is coming wash away the fraud.
THE ULTIMATE QUESTION: IGNORANCE OR WICKEDNESS?
Is it a lack of understanding of the English language, or is it pure wickedness?
If ignorance: A judge who cannot distinguish a savings clause from a penal statute—and who does not know that a repealed law is dead—has no business on the bench. The judiciary is suffering from a crisis of competence that threatens the rule of law itself.
If wickedness: The conviction is a product of judicial malice—a deliberate, calculated effort to destroy Mazi Nnamdi Kanu by any means necessary, including the flagrant violation of the Constitution. The judiciary is no longer a temple of justice; it is a tool of political oppression.
Either way, the judiciary cannot escape shame.
THE INEVITABLE RECKONING
The appellate courts face only three options:
Uphold the conviction—openly defy the Constitution. Judicial su***de.
Quash the conviction—judicial humility, but humiliation.
Find a loophole—judicial acrobatics. Lamido failed. PML v. FRN forbids it. Expose Supreme Court of Nigeria per incuriam remittal to public scrutiny and global embarrassment.
There is no fourth option. There is no escape from the constitutional brick wall.
A FINAL CAUTION TO THE JUDICIARY AND THE EXECUTIVE
You cannot destroy the Constitution to save a conviction. You cannot defy logic and dress lies as truth. You cannot point to a savings clause and call it a penal statute.
Simple English. Simple law. Simple justice.
Section 97 commanded: "shall be continued under this Act"—the TPPA.
Section 36(12) commanded: conviction must be under a written law in force—the TPPA.
Justice Omotosho ignored both. He convicted under a dead law. He defied the Constitution.
If you cannot understand these basics, you do not deserve to sit on the bench. And if you understand them but choose to ignore them, you are not judges—you are conspirators.
If you are so certain of your conviction, why are you running from your own courts? Why have you filed no response? Why do you hide from the very forum where you once rushed to destroy a man?
The answer is simple: because you know the conviction cannot survive legal scrutiny.
CONCLUSION
A man was convicted under a law that did not exist. By a judge who knew it. In a system now running from its own courts.
Justice Omotosho cited State v. Egigia to declare a repealed law dead. He then convicted under it. By his own words, his conviction is a nullity.
Section 97 commanded the proceedings to move to the TPPA. He ignored it.
Section 36(12) commanded conviction must be under a law in force. He defied it.
This is not justice. This is a judicial crime.
And the perpetrators will answer for it—if not in this life, then in the court of history.
Signed,
ONYEDIKACHI IFEDI, ESQ.
Member, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium
21 August 2026
END OF BRIEFING
