Prince Emmanuel Kanu relives his experience during the trial of IPOB leader, his elder brother.
THREAD: Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Cornered Omotosho With One Question: “Show Me the Law” — And the Court Had None
1/ On 20 November 2025, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu stood in court and asked the most dangerous question any accused person can ask a judge:
“Show me the law.”
He demanded the extant written law in force on that day that defined the offence and prescribed the punishment in line with what Section 36(12) of the Constitution of Nigeria demands.
Omotosho did not produce the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, which was the extant written law in force on 20 November 2025.
Instead, he relied on a savings clause — Section 98(3) of the same TPPA — to go back to the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, the very law the Constitution, Egigia, and other authorities said no court should attempt to use, which Omotosho acknowledged had been repealed, and which he sought to sustain through Section 98(3).
2/ The charges against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu were brought under the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013.
Verbatim from the Judgment (Count 1):
“That you Nnamdi Kanu… did commit an act in furtherance of an act of Terrorism… and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 1(2)(b) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, 2013.”
Same for Counts 2–6. The convictions remained anchored to the repealed TPAA 2013 notwithstanding the court’s reliance on Section 98(3).
3/ In his Preliminary Objection, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu had already put the issue squarely before the court:
“A Declaration that the continued prosecution… under the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013… violates Sections 1(3), 36(1)-(12)… and is therefore null and void.”
The court itself framed Issue No. 3 as whether the provisions were “repealed laws and inoperative.”
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu relied on Okafor v. AG Anambra State — any charge premised on a repealed law cannot stand.
4/ At pages 71–72 of his own 20 November 2025 conviction judgment, Omotosho stated in black and white:
“A repealed law no more has legal life. Trial conducted under a repealed law, no matter how well conducted, is a nullity.”
He cited State v. Egigia and IGP v. Ogundimu.
He accepted that TPAA 2013 had been repealed by Section 98(1) of the TPPA 2022.
Yet he ultimately relied on Section 98(3) to sustain convictions that remained anchored to the repealed TPAA 2013.
5/ Section 36(12) of the Constitution does not ask whether a written law once existed when the alleged acts occurred.
It asks whether a person may be convicted.
The constitutional event being regulated is conviction.
That is why Mazi Nnamdi Kanu kept asking:
“Show me the law.”
Not:
“Show me the law that once existed.”
Not:
“Show me a savings clause.”
But:
“Show me the written law in force that authorises this conviction.”
6/ The Court of Appeal must now answer the single question Justice Omotosho refused to answer. It must identify the written law in force on the conviction date — 20 November 2025.
If the Federal Government or the Court of Appeal judges cannot identify a complete written law that authorised the conviction, it is game over.
Omotosho accepted that TPAA 2013 was repealed.
Omotosho accepted that Section 98(3) was needed to preserve pending proceedings.
Omotosho accepted that there was a “smooth transition” after repeal but never made that transition commanded by Section 97 of the extant, written and governing TPPA.
Omotosho never identified any offence-creating provision of the TPPA 2022 under which Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was charged, arraigned, tried, or convicted.
Yet the convictions remained anchored to TPAA 2013.
The question remains exactly as Mazi Nnamdi Kanu framed it:
“Show me the law.”
If no extant written law in force can be identified as the legal foundation of the conviction delivered on 20 November 2025, then Section 36(12) has already supplied the answer.
#FreeNnamdiKanu
#ShowMeTheLaw
#Section36(12)
#Egigia
#RepealedLawNullity
#CourtOfAppeal
#Biafra
Share this. One question. One constitutional failure.
