The Rising Sun Foundation USA has announced a $10,000 reward for anyone who can produce a verifiable Nigerian judicial precedent upholding a criminal conviction based on a statute that had been repealed before judgment was delivered.
In a statement signed by its Chairman, Dr Maxwell Dede, the foundation challenged Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, as well as lawyers, academics, jurists and legal institutions, to produce such a precedent.
The challenge centres on the conviction of Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), whom Justice Omotosho convicted on seven counts on November 20, 2025.
The foundation alleged that the conviction was based on the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, which it claimed had been repealed before the judgment was delivered.
It argued that the conviction violated Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its penalty are prescribed in a written law.
“A repealed statute is not a written law in force,” the foundation stated.
It said the $10,000 reward would be paid into any bank account worldwide within seven working days after the submitted evidence had been verified.
The foundation maintained that the constitutional requirement meant that a criminal conviction could not lawfully rest on a statute that had ceased to be in force.
Citing Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961), it argued that criminal liability must be founded on an offence recognised by written law.
The statement also cited Temple Nwankwoala v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2018), attributing the following statement to Justice Rhodes-Vivour: “A trial conducted under a law that has been repealed, no matter how well conducted and decided is a nullity.”
According to the foundation, decisions such as Ogbomor v. State (1985) and Boniface Adonike v. State (2015) do not provide legal support for Kanu’s conviction because, it argued, those cases involved convictions under laws that remained in force.
It said the central legal question was whether any Nigerian court had upheld a criminal conviction whose actual legal foundation was a statute that had already been repealed.
The foundation further questioned what it described as a contradiction between the legal principle cited in Justice Omotosho’s judgment and the conviction itself.
It argued that the legal authorities and constitutional provisions it referenced raised questions about the validity of a conviction allegedly founded on a repealed statute.
The foundation’s challenge seeks a verifiable judicial decision that directly addresses the legal issue it has raised.
However, its claims and interpretation of the cited laws and judicial authorities remain the foundation’s position and should not be treated as an established judicial finding on the validity of Kanu’s conviction.
ReplyForward
Add reaction
