A United States-based group, Rising Sun Foundation USA, has offered $10,000 to anyone who can produce a Nigerian judicial precedent establishing the legality of convicting a defendant under a law repealed before judgment.
The foundation said the challenge arose from the November 20, 2025 conviction of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja.
In a statement signed by its chairman, Dr. Maxwell Dede, of Massachusetts, USA, the group challenged the statutory basis for the conviction, arguing that the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 relied upon for the terrorism counts had been repealed.
It addressed the challenge to Justice Omotosho, legal practitioners, academics and institutions worldwide, asking them to produce a qualifying judicial authority.
The foundation argued that the conviction offended Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which requires that an offence be defined and its penalty prescribed in a written law before a person can be convicted.
According to the group, a repealed penal statute could not, by itself, provide the written-law foundation required by the Constitution.
However, Justice Omotosho addressed the repeal objection in his judgment, relying on Section 98(3) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. He held that the provision preserved proceedings commenced under the earlier legislation and that its repeal did not invalidate Kanu’s trial.
The foundation disputed the sufficiency of that position, insisting that anyone relying on a savings provision must explain how it satisfied the constitutional requirement for a written law defining the offences and prescribing the penalties imposed.
It maintained that a general savings clause did not automatically make a repealed penal statute an operative law.
In support of its position, the group cited Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961), a High Court decision concerning conviction for an offence not defined in written law.
It also relied on Temple Nwankwoala v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2018), citing Justice Olabode Rhodes-Vivour’s statement that a trial under a repealed law, “no matter how well conducted and decided,” was a nullity. In that case, however, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction after finding that the statute under which the appellant was tried remained valid.
The foundation dismissed Ogbomor v. State (1985) and Boniface Adonike v. State (2015) as answers to its challenge, contending that the convictions in those cases rested on existing laws. It also said decisions permitting correction of an erroneous statutory citation on a charge sheet would not qualify.
The group further alleged a contradiction in Justice Omotosho’s reasoning, saying he cited State v. Egigia (2024) on page 72 of the judgment for the proposition that a repealed law had ceased to have legal life.
“A judge cannot explicitly write down that a repealed law is legally dead and devoid of life, and then turn around to base a criminal conviction upon that very same dead law,” the foundation said.
It described the offer as “open and unconditional,” promising payment into any bank account worldwide within seven working days of verification.
Although it acknowledged that the challenge would not determine Kanu’s pending appeal, the foundation maintained that failure to produce a qualifying precedent would support its contention that no such authority existed.
It directed submissions to hope@risingsuncharities.org and mdede@risingsuncharities.org.
The Federal High Court and the Federal Ministry of Justice had not responded to the challenge at press time.
