The law is clear on the legal foundation of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s trial.
When dealing with legal matters, it is crucial to seek enlightenment from the statutes themselves to avoid misinforming the public. Informed and enlightened Nigerians are always ready to rebut bogus legal positions.
The Applicable Law: Terrorism and Continuity
Nnamdi Kanu was sentenced on multiple counts of terrorism-related offenses by the Federal High Court in Abuja. The charges upon which his trial was based are derived from Nigeria’s terrorism laws.
The core of the legal debate often revolves around the repeal of the older law. To understand the continuity of Kanu’s case, which commenced in 2015, we must look directly at the newest legislation: The Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
Understanding the Continuity Clause: Section 98(2)
The Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 effectively repealed and replaced the previous Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011 (as amended in 2013).
The provision that guarantees the continuation of ongoing legal proceedings is Section 98(2) of the 2022 Act. While Section 98(1) explicitly repeals the 2013 Act, Section 98(2) acts as a saving clause.
- This clause ensures that criminal trials and legal proceedings that began under the repealed 2013 Act can continue as if the 2022 Act had not been enacted.
- This legal mechanism prevents existing cases, like the one involving Nnamdi Kanu, from being invalidated due to a change in legislation. This is a common and essential feature—known as a Continuity Clause—in amended legislation, especially those pertaining to criminal offences, which any serious legal expert would know.
Therefore, the new law explicitly allows and provides for the continuation of the case that commenced under the 2013 law, despite its subsequent repeal.
The Role of the Judge
The role of the judge in any trial is not to teach law, but to interpret the law and deliver justice based on the facts, the evidence presented, and the relevant applicable laws in obedience to the constitution. A defendant demanding a judge to “teach” law is inappropriate for a formal legal setting.
Conclusion and Future Outlook
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case will likely proceed through the final layers of appeal, potentially reaching the Supreme Court, where every point of appeal raised will be thoroughly reviewed. The legal basis for his trial remains firm under the provisions of the Terrorism Act, anchored by the Section 98(2) continuity clause.
Following the judicial process, any consideration for pardon or clemency rests with the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) and would likely be contingent on a verifiable show of remorse, a public acceptance of his crimes, and a commitment to cease violent agitation.
Femi Oke Betta9ja
