The family of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has called for the hearing of his appeal and questioned the legal basis of his conviction and sentence by the Federal High Court. Prince Emmanuel Kanu, Kanu's younger brother, spoke on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu Family, expressing concerns over the conviction and sentence.
According to the family, Justice James Omotosho stated in open court on 4 November 2025 that "no written law, no conviction," before delivering Kanu's conviction on 20 November 2025. The family argued that the conviction was entered under terrorism legislation that had been repealed. They cited Sections 97 and 98(2) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022, which provided transitional provisions for proceedings commenced under the previous legislation.
The family contended that the trial court should have addressed the transition from the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, as amended in 2013, to the 2022 legislation. They also raised questions concerning Count 7, which involved the Criminal Code Act and the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA). The family 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 that legislation.
The family based its argument partly on Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and its penalty prescribed in a written law. They asked what written law defined each offence and prescribed each penalty on 20 November 2025. The family also referred to authorities cited in Justice Omotosho's judgment, including State v Egigia and IGP v Ogundimu.
The family raised fair-hearing concerns, alleging that Kanu was not given the opportunity to make a final address before judgment and was not afforded the required sentencing procedure, including allocutus. They also questioned the legal effect of the Court of Appeal's 13 October 2022 decision, which discharged Kanu and quashed the relevant counts, as well as the subsequent Supreme Court order directing continuation of the proceedings.
The family expressed concerns over the progress of Kanu's appeal, stating that the Federal Government's time to file its respondent's brief had expired and that the appeal remained unlisted. They contrasted the delay with the constitution of a special panel within 14 days after the Court of Appeal's 2022 decision, which enabled Kanu's continued custody. The family called for the appeal to be listed and for the courts to determine the questions surrounding the written law, jurisdiction, and constitutional requirements applicable to Kanu's conviction.
The family urged the National Judicial Council (NJC) to examine the matter, saying the questions should be determined from the court record. They asked for the written law, name of the Act, and section to be identified, and for it to be shown that it was in force, defined the offence, and prescribed the penalty.
Key points
- Kanu's family questions the legal basis of his conviction and sentence.
- The family argues that the conviction was entered under repealed terrorism legislation.
- The family calls for the hearing of Kanu's appeal and for the courts to determine the questions surrounding the written law, jurisdiction, and constitutional requirements applicable to Kanu's conviction.
