The family of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has raised fresh questions over the legal foundation of his conviction and sentence by the Federal High Court, urging that his appeal be heard without further delay.
Speaking on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu family on Monday, Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, also called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to examine aspects of the proceedings before Justice James Omotosho.
The family’s concerns centre largely on the legislation under which Kanu was convicted. Emmanuel argued that the court relied on provisions of the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, as amended in 2013, despite the enactment of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022.
He cited Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act, arguing that the provisions established a statutory framework for dealing with proceedings affected by the repeal of the earlier terrorism legislation.
According to him, the court ought to have clarified the applicable law governing the charges before entering the conviction.
The family also invoked 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 punishment prescribed by a written law.
It consequently questioned which specific law was in force on November 20, 2025, and which provisions defined the offences and prescribed the penalties for which Kanu was convicted.
The family further raised concerns about the procedure followed before judgment, alleging that Kanu was not allowed to make a final address and was not given an opportunity to make an allocutus before sentencing.
Another issue raised was the legal status of the proceedings after the Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2022 decision, which the family said discharged Kanu and quashed relevant counts, and the subsequent Supreme Court order directing that the proceedings continue.
Emmanuel questioned what legal proceeding existed when the matter returned to the Federal High Court and what statutory provisions governed its continuation.
The family also expressed concern over the progress of Kanu’s appeal, claiming that the Federal Government’s deadline for filing its respondent’s brief had elapsed while the appeal had yet to be listed for hearing.
It therefore called for the appeal to be promptly listed and for the relevant legal questions surrounding the conviction, jurisdiction and applicable legislation to be determined from the official court record.
The Okwu-Kanu family also urged the NJC to examine the conduct of the trial, particularly the issues it raised concerning the applicable written law and constitutional safeguards.
“Where is the written law?” the family asked, insisting that the applicable Act, sections, statutory transition and constitutional basis for the conviction should be clearly identified.
