[LEGAL REBUTTAL]: Lawyer Faults Eculaw Analysis, Says Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal Brief Was Fundamentally Misread

A fresh legal debate has emerged over the appeal filed by IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu after constitutional lawyer Christopher Chidera Esq. issued a detailed rebuttal to an assessment published by Eculaw, accusing the legal platform of fundamentally misunderstanding the structure and substance of the appellate brief filed in the case.

In a public response titled *“The Eculaw Assessment Misreads the Brief’s Actual Structure,”* Chidera argued that the assessment criticized a simplified version of the appeal rather than the arguments actually presented before the court.

According to him, Eculaw approached the appeal as though it consisted of a series of independent legal complaints that could be evaluated separately and assigned individual strengths and weaknesses.

However, he maintained that the filed Brief was deliberately constructed on an entirely different constitutional framework.

“The Issues Are Connected, Not Separate”

Chidera explained that the eight issues raised in the appeal were not presented as isolated legal grounds but as interconnected constitutional requirements that must all be satisfied before a lawful conviction can stand.

According to him, the Brief adopts what he described as a “vertical” approach, requiring the court to move through a chain of linked constitutional questions.

He said the appeal asks whether the trial court had lawful authority to proceed, whether there was an extant written law governing the charges, whether jurisdiction existed, whether the prosecution established its case, whether fair hearing requirements were observed, and whether any legal dispute survived through the proceedings.

The lawyer argued that if any one of those constitutional conditions fails, the validity of the entire proceeding is called into question.

By contrast, he claimed Eculaw adopted a “horizontal” method that treated each issue as a separate complaint and assigned individual scores without considering how the issues relate to one another.

According to him, this approach failed to engage with the central architecture of the Brief.

Dispute Over the Repeal Argument

A major point of disagreement concerns Issue One of the appeal.

Chidera accused Eculaw of reducing the argument to a simple claim that the repeal of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 automatically invalidated Kanu’s conviction.

He argued that the filed Brief advances a narrower and more technical argument.

According to him, Issue One is anchored on a question posed by Justice Lawal Garba in the Supreme Court’s remittal judgment regarding whether the statutes cited in the charge remained valid and subsisting laws in Nigeria.

The lawyer said the Brief treats that question as a gateway requirement created by the Supreme Court itself.

He contended that because the charge sheet allegedly referenced statutes that were no longer in force as of March 21, 2025, the gateway condition was not satisfied, thereby affecting the validity of subsequent proceedings.

According to Chidera, Eculaw failed to assess that argument on its own terms and instead grouped it under a broader repeal debate.

Focus on the Entire Criminal Process

The lawyer also disputed Eculaw’s characterization of Issue Two.

He argued that the appeal does not merely challenge the repeal of legislation but questions whether an extant written law was properly applied throughout every stage of the criminal process.

According to him, the Brief focuses on the continuity of a lawful legal framework from the filing of charges through plea-taking, trial and eventual conviction.

He maintained that the appeal repeatedly asks whether a valid written law remained in operation throughout the entire procedural chain leading to judgment.

Chidera further claimed that neither the prosecution nor the trial court clearly identified such a law operating across all stages of the proceedings.

Fair Hearing Complaint Linked to Jurisdictional Issues

Addressing Eculaw’s treatment of the fair hearing ground, Chidera argued that the assessment wrongly viewed the complaint as a routine procedural objection.

According to him, the Brief links the denial of final address and allocutus directly to the earlier jurisdictional and repeal-related objections raised before the court.

He contended that the trial court had indicated those issues could be addressed during final written submissions, only for the opportunity to allegedly be denied before conviction was entered.

For that reason, he argued that the complaint goes beyond a mere claim that the defendant was prevented from speaking.

Instead, he said it concerns the alleged denial of an opportunity to address what the defence considered fundamental legal defects in the proceedings.

Jurisdiction Argument Defended

Chidera also defended Issue Seven, which Eculaw reportedly described as creative but lacking support in Nigerian legal authorities.

According to him, the issue is firmly rooted in statutory interpretation and jurisdictional principles.

The lawyer argued that Parliament has the power to define the conditions under which courts may exercise jurisdiction and that such conditions cannot be ignored or waived.

He pointed to provisions of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 relating to conduct with an international element, particularly the requirement of double criminality.

According to Chidera, the appeal argues that double criminality is not a discretionary matter but a statutory condition that must be satisfied before jurisdiction can arise.

He maintained that because the relevant requirement was allegedly not established, the jurisdictional foundation of the proceedings remains in dispute.

The lawyer further criticized Eculaw for focusing on previous Supreme Court findings without addressing the argument that the post-remittal proceedings should be examined within the framework of the 2022 legislation.

Clarification on Supreme Court Issue

Another point raised in the rebuttal concerns Issue Eight of the appeal.

Chidera rejected suggestions that the Brief invites the Court of Appeal to declare a Supreme Court judgment unconstitutional.

According to him, the issue is framed far more narrowly.

He said the appeal asks questions regarding the legal effect of the Court of Appeal judgment delivered on October 13, 2022, whether constitutional protections against repeated prosecution were triggered, and what legal process was subsequently used to permit continuation of the case.

The lawyer argued that the Brief relies on existing judicial authorities concerning the legal consequences of judgments delivered in favour of an accused person and whether proceedings can simply resume without a recognized legal mechanism.

Defence of the Brief’s Length and Structure

Responding to criticism that the appeal contains cascading or overly complex arguments, Chidera defended both the structure and length of the document.

According to him, the Brief expressly explains that its issues are presented as interconnected constitutional conditions rather than standalone complaints.

He also argued that the length of the document reflects the procedural history of the case and the alleged denial of opportunities to fully ventilate several issues before the trial court.

Final Position

In concluding his rebuttal, Chidera maintained that Eculaw’s analysis only partially engaged with the appeal and failed to address several of its most important constitutional arguments as they were actually framed.

He argued that while a court may ultimately adopt a narrower interpretation of the issues, any fair assessment should first evaluate the arguments contained in the filed Brief rather than simplified versions of them.

According to the lawyer, the dispute is not merely about whether the arguments will succeed before the Court of Appeal, but whether they have been accurately understood and represented in public legal commentary.

The rebuttal adds another layer to the growing legal discourse surrounding Kanu’s appeal, which continues to attract attention from lawyers, constitutional scholars and political observers across the country.