Kanu: Family Challenges Legal Basis Of Conviction, Demands Appeal Hearing

The Okwu-Kanu family has challenged the legal basis of the conviction and sentence handed down to the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, by the Federal High Court, while demanding the hearing of his appeal.

Prince Emmanuel Kanu, Kanu’s younger brother, who spoke on Monday on behalf of the family, also called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to examine the conduct of Justice James Omotosho in relation to the trial.

The family alleged that Justice Omotosho stated in open court on November 4, 2025, that “no written law, no conviction”, before delivering Kanu’s conviction on November 20, 2025.

According to the family, the conviction was entered under terrorism legislation that had been repealed, arguing that the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022 contained transitional provisions for proceedings commenced under the previous legislation.

It specifically cited Sections 97 and 98(2) of the TPPA 2022, arguing that the trial court should have addressed the transition from the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, as amended in 2013, to the 2022 legislation.

Emmanuel said the judgment relied on the repealed terrorism legislation for Counts 1 to 6, while also raising questions over Count 7, which, according to the family, involved the Criminal Code Act and the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA).

He further argued that the court did not take a fresh plea under the corresponding provisions of the 2022 terrorism law or identify the applicable offence-creating and penalty-prescribing provisions under the legislation.

The family based part of its argument on Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and its penalty prescribed in a written law.

It therefore asked: “What written law defined each offence and prescribed each penalty on 20 November 2025?”
Emmanuel also referred to authorities cited in Justice Omotosho’s judgment, including State v. Egigia and IGP v. Ogundimu, which he said addressed the legal effect of repealed legislation.

He argued that the judge’s reference to Section 98(3) of the TPPA 2022 did not amount to the statutory transition contemplated by Sections 97 and 98(2).

The family also raised fair-hearing concerns, alleging that Kanu was not given an opportunity to make a final address before judgment and was not afforded what it described as the required sentencing procedure, including allocutus.

It further questioned the legal effect of the Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2022 decision, which it said discharged Kanu and quashed the relevant counts, as well as the subsequent Supreme Court order directing the continuation of the proceedings.

The family asked what proceeding legally existed when the case returned to the Federal High Court and what authority governed its continuation.

“Calling it ‘continuation’ does not answer those questions,” the family said. “The legal character of the proceeding must be established by the orders and the Constitution.”

On the appeal, the family expressed concern over what it described as delays in the process, claiming that the Federal Government’s time to file its respondent’s brief had expired while the appeal remained unlisted.

It contrasted the situation with the constitution of a special panel within 14 days after the Court of Appeal’s 2022 decision, which it said enabled Kanu’s continued custody.

The family called for the appeal to be listed and urged the appellate court to determine the questions surrounding the written law, jurisdiction and constitutional requirements applicable to Kanu’s conviction.

It also urged the NJC to examine the matter, stressing that the issues raised could be determined from the court record.
“Where is the written law?” the family asked.

It added: “Name the Act. Name the section. Show that it was in force. Show that it defined the offence. Show that it prescribed the penalty. Show the statutory transition. Show the constitutional authority.