NIGERIA: The Okwu-Kanu family has called for the immediate hearing of the appeal filed by the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, while challenging the legal basis of his conviction and sentence by the Federal High Court.
The family anchored its argument partly on Section 36(12) of the Nigerian 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, reports The Guardian.
Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, made the position known on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu family.
According to the family, Justice James Omotosho had stated in open court on November 4, 2025, that “no written law, no conviction”, before delivering judgment convicting Kanu on November 20, 2025.
The family, however, argued that the conviction was based on terrorism legislation that had been repealed.
It contended that the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022 contained transitional provisions governing proceedings instituted under the earlier Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, as amended in 2013.
Specifically, the family cited Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act, arguing that the trial court ought to have addressed the legal transition from the repealed legislation to the current law.
Emmanuel alleged that the judgment relied on the repealed terrorism legislation in relation to Counts 1 to 6 and also questioned the legal basis of Count 7, which involved provisions of the Criminal Code Act and the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA).
He 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 also referred to authorities cited in Justice Omotosho’s judgment, including State v. Egigia and IGP v. Ogundimu, which it said dealt with the legal consequences of repealed legislation.
It further raised fair-hearing concerns, alleging that Kanu was not given an opportunity to make a final address before judgment and was not afforded the required sentencing procedure, including allocutus.
The family also 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.
Emmanuel questioned what legal proceeding 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.”
The family also expressed concern over the progress of Kanu’s appeal, alleging 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 facilitated Kanu’s continued detention.
The family urged the appellate court to list the appeal and determine the questions surrounding the written law, jurisdiction and constitutional requirements applicable to Kanu’s conviction.
Emmanuel also called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to examine the matter, saying the issues raised should be determined from the official court record.
He said: “Where is the written law? 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 constitutional authority.”
