From Godwin Tsa Abuja
A legal practitioner and public interest analyst, Christopher Chidera, has criticised the 20-year jail term imposed on a 48-year-old man, Paul Okechukwu, for membership of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), arguing that the conviction rests on a repealed law and an improperly obtained proscription order.
Justice Hauwa Yilwa of the Federal High Court in Abuja sentenced Okechukwu under Section 16 of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013.
In a statement, Chidera said the 2022 Act, expressly repealed 2013 Act, and that Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution bars conviction under a non-existent written law.
He said a general savings clause preserves pending proceedings and accrued liabilities, but does not revive a repealed penal provision as the basis for a conviction. “Delivering two-decade prison sentences on the skeleton of an expired statute is an outright nullity,” he said.
Chidera linked the case to the November 20, 2025 judgment of Justice James Omotosho, which convicted IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu under the same 2013 Act. He argued that Justice Yilwa’s decision repeats the alleged error.
The lawyer also questioned the legal foundation of IPOB’s proscription. He noted that on March 2, 2017, Justice Binta Nyako struck out six counts against Kanu, holding that IPOB was not an unlawful society.
Months later, he said, the Federal Government obtained an ex parte proscription order from Justice Abdul Abdu-Kafarati without putting IPOB on notice.
Citing Order 26, Rule 12 of the Federal High Court Rules, Chidera argued that an ex parte order is a temporary measure lasting 14 days, and cannot serve as a permanent basis for criminal liability.
He said proscription regulates an organisation’s status and does not prove an individual’s guilt, so the prosecution must still prove a specific criminal act.
He added that Kanu’s 22-ground appellant brief challenges the proscription on the grounds of lack of presidential authority and the principle that an ex parte order cannot override an existing inter partes ruling.
He said the Supreme Court is yet to determine the legality of the proscription, and criticised what he called the rush to impose maximum sentences in the meantime.