Rising Sun Foundation USA has offered a $10,000 reward to anyone who can produce a verifiable Nigerian judicial precedent upholding a criminal conviction based on a law repealed before the conviction was delivered.
The foundation announced the challenge on Wednesday in a statement signed by its chair, Dr Maxwell Dede, questioning the legal basis of the conviction of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, by the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Kanu was convicted on seven counts on November 20, 2025, by Justice James Omotosho. The foundation alleged that the conviction relied on the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, which it said had been repealed before the judgment was delivered.
It argued that the issue raised constitutional questions under 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 by written law.
“Section 36(12) is absolute: no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law in force. A repealed statute is not a written law in force,” the foundation stated.
The organisation said the $10,000 reward would be paid into any bank account worldwide within seven working days after verifying evidence submitted in response to the challenge.
It called on Justice Omotosho, legal practitioners, academics, jurists and legal institutions in Nigeria and abroad to produce a judicial decision meeting its criteria.
The foundation cited the 1961 case of Aoko v. Fagbemi, arguing that it established the principle that criminal liability must be based on an offence recognised by written law.
It also referenced Temple Nwankwoala v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2018), quoting a statement attributed to Justice Rhodes-Vivour that a trial conducted under a repealed law was a nullity.
The foundation further cited the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Egigia (2024), LPELR-62009(SC), which it said was quoted by Justice Omotosho on page 72 of his judgment in Kanu’s case.
According to the statement, the Supreme Court had held that a repealed law no longer had legal force and could not serve as the basis for comparison with an existing law.
The foundation argued that the cited passage raised questions about the legal foundation of Kanu’s conviction, given its allegation that the judgment relied on the repealed terrorism legislation.
It maintained that cases in which courts corrected errors in statutory references on charge sheets did not necessarily establish a precedent for upholding a conviction founded on a law that had ceased to exist.
The organisation also referred to Ogbomor v. State (1985) and Boniface Adonike v. State (2015), arguing that the cases did not support such a precedent because, according to its interpretation, the convictions were entered under laws that remained in force.
On the possibility that a savings provision preserved criminal proceedings or liability following the repeal of a statute, the foundation said those relying on such a provision must demonstrate how it satisfied the constitutional requirements for the offences and penalties imposed.
“Merely pointing to the existence of a general savings clause does not automatically convert a repealed penal statute into an operative written law in force,” it said.
The foundation urged the legal community to either produce a qualifying judicial precedent or identify the statutory and constitutional provisions that lawfully permitted the conviction under the circumstances it described.
“Produce the precedent, or demonstrate the actual statutory and constitutional foundation that lawfully permitted this conviction,” the statement said, adding that the $10,000 offer remained open.
It, however, acknowledged that the absence of a response to the challenge would not determine the outcome of Kanu’s appeal, while maintaining that no qualifying precedent would have been produced in response to its offer if none was submitted.
The foundation’s position remains an argument about the legal basis of the conviction and does not, by itself, establish that the conviction was unlawful.