By Ayomide Otitoju
A new legal dispute has emerged over the interpretation of Sections 97 and 98 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, following a recent ruling by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in the case of Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Nnamdi Kanu. Critics argue that the court improperly relied on a repealed law to sustain criminal charges.
At issue is whether the judge could invoke Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act— a savings clause preserving investigative steps taken under the repealed 2013 Terrorism Amendment Act— while declining to apply Section 97, which expressly mandates that all ongoing terrorism proceedings “shall be continued and completed” under the 2022 law.
Legal analysts say the two provisions were intended to work together: Section 97 directs courts to complete all pending cases under the new Act, while Section 98(3) ensures that previous arrests, charges, and evidence remain valid during the transition. They argue that Section 98(3) does not revive the repealed 2013 Act, nor does it permit convictions under provisions no longer in force.
“The law is clear: proceedings are to continue under the 2022 Act,” critics said, faulting the court for relying on offences that were repealed three years earlier. They contend that the ruling contradicts the intention of the National Assembly, which repealed the 2013 statute and enacted new offences and procedures in its place.
Observers also question why, if the 2013 Act remained “extant,” lawmakers would mandate a full migration to the 2022 framework. They argue that the ruling risks creating uncertainty for ongoing terrorism prosecutions and raises broader concerns about consistency in judicial interpretation.
The defence team has filed an appeal, urging the Court of Appeal to overturn what it describes as an erroneous application of the law. Legal practitioners and civil society groups have called for clarity to ensure that future cases are handled in line with the statute’s intent.
The controversy has sparked renewed public debate about judicial accountability and the importance of clear statutory interpretation, particularly in high-profile national security cases.
