The legal team representing the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has challenged the Federal Government to appear before the Court of Appeal and defend the conviction that resulted in his life sentence.
The defence team’s position followed a fresh demand by the Okwu-Kanu family for the immediate hearing of Kanu’s pending appeals, amid concerns over what it described as prolonged delays in proceedings relating to his detention, conviction and sentence.
In a statement issued on Wednesday by Barrister Christopher Chidera, Esq., a member of the Global Legal Consortium to Kanu, the defence questioned why the Federal Government had allegedly not moved to actively defend the conviction before the appellate court.
Chidera said the government should use the opportunity to clearly identify the law under which Kanu was convicted and explain the statutory provisions relied upon by the prosecution.
He said: “If the federal government believes that his conviction is legally sound, it should come to court and defend it. There is nowhere to hide.”
The lawyer also challenged the legal basis of the conviction, particularly in relation to Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution, which requires criminal offences and their punishments to be prescribed by written law.
According to him, the central issue before the Court of Appeal should be the specific law that was in force and applicable when Kanu was convicted on November 20, 2025.
He questioned the reliance on a savings provision to preserve proceedings under repealed legislation, arguing that such a position must still satisfy the constitutional requirement that an offence and its punishment be prescribed by written law.
Chidera specifically raised questions concerning Section 97 of the Terrorism (Prevention) and Prohibition Act (TPPA) 2022 and its provision regarding proceedings commenced under repealed legislation.
He argued that the appellate court would have to determine what law defined the offence, what law prescribed the punishment and whether the statutory framework relied upon by the government was constitutionally valid at the time of Kanu’s conviction.
The defence lawyer said these were the same questions Kanu had raised during his trial when he demanded that the prosecution “show me the law.”
Meanwhile, the Okwu-Kanu family had disclosed that Kanu wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the President of the Court of Appeal, seeking the immediate listing and hearing of his pending cases.
The family attributed the request to what it described as prolonged delays in the legal proceedings surrounding Kanu’s continued detention, conviction and life sentence.
The defence team said it supported the family’s demand, insisting that the appropriate place to resolve the dispute was the courtroom.
Chidera urged the Federal Government to identify the law it relied upon, explain the relevant statutory provisions and allow the Court of Appeal to determine the legal consequences.
He stressed that the defence was not prejudging the outcome of the appeal but maintained that the legal questions surrounding Kanu’s conviction should be resolved through judicial determination.
“The federal government should therefore stop running from the courtroom. Come and defend the conviction. Identify the law. Explain the statutory provisions. And let the Court of Appeal determine the consequences,” he said.
