•Incarcerated IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu
Emmanuel Kanu, younger brother of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, has challenged the legal foundation of his brother’s terrorism conviction, arguing that any criminal conviction must be anchored on a valid law in force at the time judgment is delivered.
In a statement shared today, the younger Kanu defended the detained IPOB leader’s courtroom exchange with Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, describing it as “a legitimate constitutional challenge rather than an act of defiance.”
According to him, the issue at the centre of the case is whether the conviction complies with Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its penalty are prescribed in a written law, reports The PUNCH.
“Any criminal conviction must be anchored on a valid law in force at the time judgment is delivered,” he siad.
Emmanuel Kanu said that during proceedings on November 20, 2025, the IPOB leader repeatedly demanded that the court identify the specific law under which he was convicted.
He claimed that while the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, is Nigeria’s current terrorism law, the conviction allegedly relied on provisions associated with the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013.
He said, “The prosecution’s case was initially instituted under the 2013 law and continued after its repeal through a savings provision contained in Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act.”
He argued, however, that the constitutional issue extends beyond whether proceedings can continue after a repeal and concerns whether a conviction can be sustained without reference to an offence-creating law that remains in force at the time of judgment.
“The question is whether the conviction meets the constitutional requirement that both the offence and punishment must be prescribed in a written law,” he also said.
He further claimed that the court did not expressly identify a standalone offence-creating provision under the 2022 Act as the basis for the conviction, a development he said raises concerns about whether the judgment satisfies constitutional standards.
He noted that the defence had previously challenged the continued reliance on the repealed legislation, arguing that any conviction founded on such a law would be invalid.
According to him, although the court acknowledged that repealed laws generally cease to have legal effect, it relied on transitional provisions to preserve the prosecution and allow the case to proceed.
Prince Kanu said the matter would now be scrutinised by the Court of Appeal, where the Kanu camp is expected to argue that the prosecution must clearly identify the extant law supporting the conviction.
He said, “If no such law is identified, the conviction could fail the constitutional test set out in Section 36(12) of the Constitution.”
He maintained that the appeal would ultimately determine whether the conviction was grounded in a valid and existing law as required by the Constitution.
Kanu is facing terrorism-related charges filed by the federal government over activities linked to IPOB.
The case has remained one of Nigeria’s most closely watched legal battles, attracting local and international attention.
In October 2022, the Court of Appeal discharged Kanu after ruling that his extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria violated both domestic and international law.
However, the federal government challenged the decision, and the Supreme Court subsequently set aside the discharge order and directed that the trial continue on its merits.
Following the continuation of proceedings, Kanu was later convicted and sentenced by the court and subsequently remanded at the Sokoto Correctional Centre, where he is currently serving his sentence.
