The family of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has requested the National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court. They claim the judge wrongly convicted Kanu under terrorism and customs laws that had been repealed. This forms part of Kanu's pending appeal against his conviction and life imprisonment.
On November 20, 2025, Justice Omotosho convicted Kanu on seven terrorism-related counts, sentencing him to life imprisonment on four counts, 20 years on another, and five years on a further count, with the sentences to run concurrently. The family argues that the conviction relied on the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, as amended in 2013, which had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022.
The 2022 Act repealed the 2011 Act but contains savings and transitional provisions for ongoing cases. Kanu's family contends that Sections 97 and 98 of the 2022 Act required proceedings commenced under the old law to continue under corresponding provisions of the new legislation. However, they claim no fresh plea was taken from Kanu under the 2022 Act, and the judgment did not identify corresponding provisions of the new law.
The family also questions the treatment of a count under the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), arguing that it had been repealed by the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023. Section 280 of the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023 repeals CEMA while preserving certain actions and instruments made under the repealed legislation. They fault the judge's reliance on savings provisions of the 2022 terrorism law.
Kanu's family cited several constitutional and procedural grounds for the NJC to examine Justice Omotosho's conduct. These include Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and penalty are prescribed in a written law. They also cited Section 122 of the Evidence Act and Section 36(1) of the Constitution on fair hearing.
The family alleged that Kanu was denied an opportunity to make a proper final address before judgment and was also denied allocutus before sentence was imposed. However, reports of proceedings before judgment indicated that Justice Omotosho held that Kanu failed to open his defence despite being given several days to do so. The family also raised concern over the delay in hearing Kanu's appeal against the November 20, 2025 conviction.
The family demanded that the appeal be listed and determined, urging the appellate court to quash the conviction if it found that the constitutional and statutory requirements for the offences and sentences were not satisfied. They also asked the NJC to investigate Justice Omotosho's conduct in the proceedings. Neither Justice Omotosho, the Federal High Court, the NJC, nor the Federal Government had responded to the allegations at press time.
Key points
- Kanu's family accuses Justice Omotosho of convicting him under repealed terrorism law.
- The family argues that the conviction relied on provisions of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, which had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022.
- The family demands that the appeal be listed and determined, urging the appellate court to quash the conviction if it finds that the constitutional and statutory requirements were not satisfied.
