The family of Nnamdi Kanu has called for the immediate hearing of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra’s appeal while challenging the legal basis of his conviction and sentence by the Federal High Court.
The Okwu-Kanu family, through Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, also urged the National Judicial Council (NJC) to examine the conduct of Justice James Omotosho in relation to the trial.
The family’s concerns centre on the legislation relied upon in convicting Kanu, particularly Counts 1 to 6, which it said were based on the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, as amended in 2013.
It argued that the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 contained transitional provisions governing proceedings commenced under the repealed legislation.
The family specifically referred to Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act, arguing that the trial court was required to address the transition from the earlier terrorism law to the new legislation.
According to the family, the judgment delivered on November 20, 2025, relied on the repealed legislation for Counts 1 to 6, while Count 7 raised separate issues under the Criminal Code Act and the Customs and Excise Management Act.
It further argued that Kanu was not required to enter a fresh plea under the corresponding provisions of the 2022 terrorism legislation and that the judgment did not identify the applicable provisions creating the offences and prescribing their penalties.
The family based part of its argument on Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution, which requires criminal offences and their penalties to be established by written law before a conviction can be entered.
It also disputed the legal effect of the trial judge’s reference to Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act, arguing that the provision did not constitute the statutory transition contemplated by Sections 97 and 98(2).
The family further questioned the implications 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 that the proceedings continue.
It also raised concerns about the progress of Kanu’s appeal, claiming that the Federal Government’s deadline for filing its respondent’s brief had expired while the appeal remained unlisted.
The family called for the appeal to be listed so that the courts could determine the issues surrounding the written law, jurisdiction and constitutional requirements applicable to Kanu’s conviction.
It also urged the NJC to examine the matter based on the records of proceedings.
The family’s position represents its legal challenge to the conviction, while the issues raised remain matters for determination by the appellate courts.
Discussion0