Legal Storm Grows Over Justice Omotosho’s Handling of Nnamdi Kanu Terrorism Trial

 Legal Storm Grows Over Justice Omotosho’s Handling of Nnamdi Kanu Terrorism Trial

By City Pulse News

August 23, 2026

Category: Law & Judiciary

A major legal controversy continues to surround Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja over his conduct of the high-profile terrorism trial of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu. At the centre of the dispute is a fundamental constitutional question: whether a Nigerian court can convict a person using a law that has already been repealed.

During the trial, Kanu and his defence team repeatedly asked the court a direct question that has now become the focus of intense public debate: “Show me the written law currently in force that authorises this conviction.” They argued that Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution makes it clear that no one can be found guilty of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the punishment prescribed in a written law that is still valid at the time of the trial and conviction.

Critics, including Kanu’s lawyers and several independent legal analysts, maintain that Justice Omotosho relied on sections of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013. That law was formally repealed when the National Assembly passed the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. Under long-standing Supreme Court decisions, a repealed statute is regarded as dead and cannot normally form the basis of a criminal conviction unless a clear savings clause specifically keeps it alive for that purpose.

The defence team has described the resulting conviction as “legally impossible” and a potential nullity. They say the court never properly identified any active, offence-creating provision under the 2022 terrorism law that was in force on the day of judgment.

Beyond the Kanu case, Justice Omotosho has attracted attention for several other high-profile political and security-related rulings in recent years, including matters linked to the Rivers State emergency declaration and internal party disputes. Some commentators, including respected human-rights lawyer Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, have publicly questioned what they call an inconsistent or selective approach to legal interpretation in some of these decisions.

The Federal Government and supporters of the judgment insist that the trial followed due process and that transitional provisions in the 2022 Act allowed certain ongoing cases to continue under older rules. Justice Omotosho remains an active judge and continues to handle sensitive cases involving terrorism, financial crimes, and constitutional matters.

In March 2026, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) was forced to issue a public statement after a false video circulated online claiming the agency had arrested and was prosecuting the judge. The ICPC firmly denied the claim, stating it has neither arrested nor investigated Justice Omotosho and has no legal mandate to probe serving judicial officers.

City Pulse News Analysis

This case has moved beyond one individual trial. It now raises deeper questions about the rule of law, judicial accountability, and how strictly Nigerian courts must follow the constitutional requirement for a written law that is still in force. The eventual decision of the Court of Appeal (and possibly the Supreme Court) on the repealed-statute issue is expected to have lasting effects on future criminal and terrorism prosecutions in Nigeria.

City Pulse News will continue to follow the appeals and related judicial developments closely.