The recent conviction and sentencing of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has sparked significant reactions across Nigeria, with former Presidential candidate Peter Obi and the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium each issuing strong condemnations. Both parties argue that the conviction is not only unjust but also detrimental to the nation's stability and legal framework.

Peter Obi, in a statement released on November 22, expressed his profound concern, stating that Kanu's conviction would only "aggravate the tension in Nigeria." He maintained that Kanu should never have been arrested in the first place, viewing his arrest, detention, and subsequent conviction as a clear "failure of leadership and a misunderstanding of the issues at stake." Obi contended that the grievances Kanu raised were neither "unheard of" nor "insoluble," asserting that they merely required "wisdom, empathy, and a willingness of the government to listen to them and proffer solutions." The former Anambra state governor criticized the Federal government’s approach, arguing it has deepened mistrust and created an unnecessary distraction amidst severe economic hardships and pervasive insecurity faced by citizens. He urged leaders to opt for healing, reconciliation, and dialogue over hostility and division, emphasizing that "leadership often demands more than a strict, mechanical application of the law" and that nations frequently resort to political solutions and negotiated settlements for broader peace and stability.

Concurrently, the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium vehemently denounced the November 20, 2025, judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja. The consortium, in a public briefing signed by Njoku Jude Njoku, Esq., described the ruling as "void, unconstitutional, and unsustainable in law." Their primary contention is that Justice Omotosho convicted Kanu on seven charges bordering on terrorism and being a leader of a terrorist organization, despite the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, under which the conviction was based, having been expressly repealed by Section 104 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022. This legal argument is further bolstered by an Enugu High Court ruling in October 2023 which nullified the proscription of IPOB as a terrorist organization, a judgment that remains unchallenged.

Njoku Jude Njoku, Esq., emphasized the critical legal principle that "a repealed law is a dead law. A court cannot revive it. A conviction cannot stand on it." He cited Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates that any offense and its penalty must be defined in a "written law" currently in force. Since the 2013 Act was not in force on November 20, 2025, the conviction is rendered a nullity. The consortium also rejected the Nigerian government’s attempt to justify the application of the repealed law by invoking a savings clause in the 2022 Act. They argued that "savings clauses preserve pending matters" and do not create new proceedings or resurrect repealed laws. Given that Kanu was discharged by the Court of Appeal on October 13, 2022, the defence maintained there was no pending case to be "saved," and the subsequent proceedings in 2023 constituted a new, invalid trial.

Furthermore, the consortium highlighted that the extant TPPA 2022 "materially changes Nigerian terrorism law" by specifically requiring violent or grievous conduct and explicitly excluding non-violent political activity such as protest, advocacy, and dissent. They asserted that the allegations against Kanu—centered on "speeches, broadcasts, and political advocacy"—do not fall under the purview of terrorism as defined by the current statute. The defence team also pointed out the trial court's failure to apply the lighter or more favorable law, as required by Section 36(8) of the 1999 Constitution. Concluding their assessment, the consortium declared the ruling to be in violation of Section 1(3) on the supremacy of the Constitution and breaches Sections 36(8), 36(9), and 36(12), asserting its lack of jurisdiction and incapability of withstanding appellate review. The defence team confirmed their immediate intention to file an appeal, expressing strong confidence that the Court of Appeal would overturn Justice Omotosho’s decision, given the grounds rooted in constitutional supremacy, statutory repeal, and the doctrine of nullity.