MNK: "Charge Filed Under A Wrong Or Repealed Law Does Not Vitiate The Trial" - Lawyers Clarifies

In a recent detailed Facebook post that has sparked widespread discussion among legal practitioners and the public, a Nigerian erudite lawyer, Barr. Chinaza Duke Nwosu (Duke M. C. Nwosu), has addressed a common misconception surrounding the ongoing terrorism trial of Maazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).

Recall that Maazi Kanu is facing a 15-count amended charge filed by the Federal Government, stemming from his activities as IPOB leader, including broadcasts alleged to incite violence as well as undermine national security. The trial, which has seen multiple adjournments, has the judgement to be delivered by Justice Omotosho, scheduled on November 20, 2025.

There have however been arguments that he is being charged under a wrong law, and/or an inexistent law which in otherwords, invalidates the proceedings, Duke challenging these arguments stated that there are actually existing laws to wit: the latest Terrorism Prevention Act, and the Criminal Code Act, that adequately cover the offense. He added that there are established judicial precedents which will be discussed below, that bind trial judges, including Justice James Omotosho.

Aviomoh v. COP & Anor, (2021) LPELR - 55203 (SC) - In this Supreme Court ruling delivered by Justice Helen Ogunwumiju, the apex court held: “Filing a charge pursuant to a wrong or repealed law DOES NOT render the charge incompetent, in so far as the offenses are known to some other law which is extant.” This principle underscores that substantive justice prevails over technical defects in the framing of charges.

And in Ecobank (Nig) LTD v. FRN & Anor, (2024) LPELR - 73211 (CA) - Justice Hadiza Shagari of the Court of Appeal reinforced the position, stating: “The law is settled that where a person is charged for an offense under a wrong or non-existent law, and there is an extant law which adequately covers that offense, the accused person shall not be acquitted on grounds of that. It will amount to technicality against justice to do so.”

These rulings establish a clear doctrine: procedural missteps in citing repealed statutes do not vitiate a trial if the conduct in question falls within the ambit of current laws. Read other statements he made on the post he titled with the rhetorical question “HOW CAN NIGERIA CHARGE NNAMDI KANU ON A REPEALED LAW? IS THAT EVEN NORMAL?” below:

"The reason I am taking pains to explain this is that I have read so many misleading information on this issue since yesterday. Every Nigerian don turn lawyer, quoting and spewing rubbish. Don’t let cheap bloggers deceive you. Don’t let sentiments affect your reasoning! You are permitted to clamour for MNK’s release, but don’t lie or fabricate narratives against the law, so that tomorrow if he should be convicted, you will say Justice Omotosho was paid to convict him."

"Law is not social media noise. The best lawyers are often not on social media rant threads."

"I sincerely wish MNK the best on the 20th. I hope he is acquitted. But as for this argument? Sorry, the law is straightforward on the issue of being charged under a repealed or wrong law. That his argument holds no water." 

SPONSORED

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ORDER

Concurring to this, Barr. Charles Chibuchi Egwuogu said: "The law is clear that as long one's guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and there exists a law under which the person can be found guilty, the fact that they were charged under a wrong section of the law or even a repealed law is immaterial. That would be technicality taken too far."

"To the charges themselves, only the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2013 can be said be a repealed law - as it was replaced by the 2022 Act. Even the 2022 TPP Act has a provision in Section 98(3) as follows: "Any proceeding, prosecution, sentence, judgment, charge or cause of action pending or existing immediately before the commencement of this Act under any of the repealed Act in respect of any right, interest, obligation or liability, may be continued or commenced, as the case may be, and any determination of a court of law, tribunal or other authorities or person may be enforced to the same extent that such proceeding, prosecution, sentence, judgment, charge, cause of action or determination might have been continued, commenced or enforced as if this Act had not been made."

"On the issue of why his objections were not first dispensed with before continuing with the main case, Section 396(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 allows for the decisions on such objections (even on jurisdiction) to be delivered alongside with the main judgment at the end of the case."

"Meanwhile the court in Mahmuda v. State (2023) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1902) 587 Pp 624-625 paras G-D SC/1159C/2019, held as follows: "Where an offence known to law is disclosed in a charge and the penalty for the offence is prescribed in a written existing law and the charge is erroneously brought under a wrong section of an existing law or under a law which has been repealed or has ceased to exist and both the accused and his counsel are not misled and no objection is raised to the defective charge, a conviction for the offence disclosed in the charge will not be set aside on appeal if there has been no miscarriage of justice. However, it will be a different situation only if the offence for which the accused person is convicted is not known to law. If the offence on which a person is convicted is known to law, the fact that the accused is charged under a wrong law or section of the law will not lead to his acquittal."

"I wish Nnamdi Kanu justice on the 20th. However, this is solely for enlightenment purposes - apologies for the new breed of professors of practice in law littered all over Facebook." Egwuogu concluded.

Contact us via【 WHATSAPP 】for your publications or advert placement.