A legal practitioner and public interest analyst, Christopher Chidera, has questioned the legality of the 20-year prison sentence imposed on 48-year-old Paul Okechukwu for membership of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), arguing that the conviction was based on a repealed law and a disputed proscription order.
Justice Hauwa Yilwa of the Federal High Court in Abuja sentenced Okechukwu under Section 16 of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013.
However, Chidera argued that the legal foundation of the conviction was questionable because the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2022 expressly repealed the 2013 legislation.
In a statement, the lawyer cited Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits the conviction of a person for a criminal offence unless the offence and its penalty are prescribed in a written law.
He maintained that although general savings provisions may preserve pending proceedings and accrued liabilities following the repeal of legislation, they do not automatically revive a repealed criminal provision as the basis for a conviction.
“Delivering two-decade prison sentences on the skeleton of an expired statute is an outright nullity,” Chidera said.
Lawyer Links Okechukwu’s Conviction to Nnamdi Kanu Case
Chidera linked Okechukwu’s conviction to the November 20, 2025 judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which he said also involved the application of the 2013 terrorism legislation in the case against IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu.
According to the lawyer, the decision in Okechukwu’s case raises similar legal questions about the use of the repealed legislation.
He argued that the applicability of the former law must be carefully examined against the provisions of the 2022 Act, including any relevant savings and transitional provisions.
The dispute centres on whether the 2013 legislation could lawfully support a conviction delivered after its repeal and whether the circumstances of the proceedings fall within any applicable statutory exceptions.
Chidera Questions Legal Basis of IPOB Proscription
The lawyer also challenged the legal foundation of IPOB’s proscription, pointing to earlier court proceedings involving the organisation and its leader.
He recalled that on March 2, 2017, Justice Binta Nyako struck out six counts against Kanu after holding, according to Chidera’s account, that IPOB was not an unlawful society.
Chidera said the Federal Government subsequently obtained an ex parte proscription order from Justice Abdul Abdu-Kafarati without first putting IPOB on notice.
He questioned whether the procedure and legal circumstances surrounding the order were sufficient to sustain the criminal consequences now being attached to membership of the organisation.
Lawyer Cites Federal High Court Rules on Ex Parte Orders
In challenging the proscription order, Chidera referred to Order 26, Rule 12 of the Federal High Court Rules.
He argued that an ex parte order is intended to provide temporary relief and that the applicable rule limits such an order to 14 days.
On that basis, he questioned whether an order obtained without hearing the affected party could provide a permanent legal foundation for criminal liability.
The lawyer further argued that the proscription of an organisation and the criminal responsibility of an individual are separate legal questions.
According to him, declaring an organisation proscribed does not, by itself, establish that a particular person committed a criminal offence. The prosecution must still prove the elements of the specific offence charged in accordance with the law.
Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal Raises Questions Over Proscription
Chidera also referred to Kanu’s 22-ground appellant brief, which he said challenges the proscription on several legal grounds.
These reportedly include questions about the authority under which the order was obtained and whether an ex parte order can override an earlier ruling delivered in proceedings involving the affected parties.
He argued that the issues surrounding the proscription require judicial determination, particularly as he maintained that the Supreme Court had yet to determine its legality.
The lawyer criticised what he described as the rush to impose maximum prison sentences while these legal questions remain contested.
Legal Questions Remain Central to the Dispute
The controversy surrounding Okechukwu’s 20-year sentence raises questions about the interpretation of repealed legislation, the effect of statutory savings provisions, the legal status of IPOB’s proscription and the evidence required to establish individual criminal responsibility.
Chidera maintains that these questions should be resolved through the appropriate judicial processes before the disputed legal arguments are treated as settled.
The final legal position will depend on the applicable statutory provisions, the relevant court records and any authoritative appellate decisions addressing the issues raised.