•Incarcerated IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu
The Okwu-Kanu family has demanded the immediate hearing of the appeal filed by the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, while questioning the legal basis of his conviction and sentence by the Federal High Court.
The family based its argument partly on Section 36(12) of the 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, spoke on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu family.
According to the family, Justice Omotosho said in open court on November 4, 2025, that “no written law, no conviction”, before delivering Kanu’s conviction on November 20, 2025.
The family argued that the conviction was entered under terrorism legislation that had been repealed, contending that the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022 provided transitional provisions for proceedings commenced under the previous legislation.
It specifically 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Sections 97 and 98(2) of the TPPA 2022, arguing that the trial court should have addressed the transition from the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, as amended in 2013, to the 2022 legislation.
Emmanuel said the judgment relied on the repealed terrorism legislation for Counts 1 to 6 and also raised questions concerning Count 7, which it said involved the Criminal Code Act and the Customs and Excise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 that legislation.
He also referred to authorities cited in Justice Omotosho’s judgment, including State v. Egigia and IGP v. Ogundimu, which it said address the legal effect of repealed legislation.
He also raised fair-hearing concerns, 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.
The family further 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 continuation of the proceedings.
He asked what proceeding legally existed when the case returned to the Federal High Court and what authority governed its continuation.
He said: “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 raised concerns over the progress of Kanu’s appeal, saying that the Federal Government’s time to file its respondent’s brief had expired and that the appeal remained unlisted.
It contrasted the delay with the constitution of a special panel within 14 days after the Court of Appeal’s 2022 decision, which it said 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, jurisdiction and constitutional requirements applicable to Kanu’s conviction.
Emmanuel urged the NJC to examine the matter, saying the questions should be determined from the court record.
He added, “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.”
