The family of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous Peoples Of Biafra (IPOB), has called for a hearing of his appeal while questioning 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 conduct of Justice James Omotosho during the trial. The family argues that the conviction was entered under repealed terrorism legislation.
According to the family, 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. The family contends that the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022 provided transitional provisions for proceedings commenced under the previous legislation. They cited Sections 97 and 98(2) of the TPPA 2022, arguing that the trial court should have addressed the transition from the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011.
The family argues that the conviction relied on the repealed terrorism legislation for Counts 1 to 6 and raises questions concerning Count 7, which involves the Criminal Code Act and the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA). They claim 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. This, they argue, contravenes Section 36(12) of the Constitution.
The family also raised concerns about the fair hearing, 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 referred to authorities cited in Justice Omotosho's judgment, including State v. Egigia and IGP v. Ogundimu, which address the legal effect of repealed legislation. The family argues that the judge's reference to Section 98(3) of the TPPA 2022 does not amount to the statutory transition contemplated by Sections 97 and 98(2).
The family questioned the legal effect of the Court of Appeal's October 13, 2022 decision, which discharged Kanu and quashed the relevant counts, as well as the subsequent Supreme Court order directing continuation of the proceedings. They asked what proceeding legally existed when the case returned to the Federal High Court and what authority governed its continuation. The family stated that calling it "continuation" does not answer those questions.
The family also 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.
The family urged the National Judicial Council (NJC) to examine the matter, saying the questions should be determined from the court record. They asked: "Where is the written law?" and 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." The family seeks a thorough examination of the conviction and sentence.
Key points
- Kanu's family questions the legal basis of his conviction and sentence.
- The family argues that the conviction relied on repealed terrorism legislation.
- The family calls for the appeal to be listed and for the courts to determine the questions surrounding the written law.
