Emmanuel Kanu, younger brother of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has questioned the legal foundation of his brother’s terrorism conviction, arguing that any criminal judgment must be based on a valid law in force at the time of sentencing.
In a statement released on Tuesday, Emmanuel Kanu described his brother’s courtroom exchange with Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja as a “legitimate constitutional challenge rather than an act of defiance.”
He said the central issue in the case relates to Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which stipulates that no person can be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its penalty are clearly defined in written law.
“Any criminal conviction must be anchored on a valid law in force at the time judgment is delivered,” he said.
Emmanuel Kanu explained that during proceedings on November 20, 2025, Nnamdi Kanu repeatedly asked the court to specify the exact law under which he was convicted.
He argued that while the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, is currently Nigeria’s principal anti-terrorism legislation, the conviction was allegedly based on provisions of the now-repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013.
According to him, the prosecution was initially filed under the 2013 law and continued under the 2022 Act through transitional provisions contained in Section 98(3).
However, he maintained that the constitutional question goes beyond procedural continuity and focuses on whether a conviction can stand without a clearly identifiable, active offence-creating law 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 said.
He further claimed that the court did not explicitly cite a specific operative provision of the 2022 Act as the legal basis for the conviction, raising concerns about compliance with constitutional safeguards.
Emmanuel Kanu noted that the defence has consistently argued against reliance on repealed legislation, insisting that such reliance would render any conviction invalid.
He acknowledged that the court referenced transitional provisions allowing the continuation of proceedings, despite the repeal of the earlier law.
Prince Kanu said the matter is now expected to be reviewed by the Court of Appeal, where the defence will argue that the conviction must clearly rest on an existing and enforceable statute.
“If no such law is identified, the conviction could fail the constitutional test set out in Section 36(12) of the Constitution,” he said.
He added that the appeal will ultimately determine whether the conviction meets the legal requirement of being grounded in a valid law.
Nnamdi Kanu is currently facing terrorism-related charges brought by the Federal Government over activities linked to IPOB.
His case remains one of Nigeria’s most closely watched legal battles, drawing significant domestic and international attention.
In October 2022, the Court of Appeal discharged him after ruling that his extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria violated both domestic and international law.
However, the Supreme Court later overturned that decision and ordered the continuation of his trial.
Following the resumed proceedings, Kanu was convicted and sentenced, and is currently being held at the Sokoto Correctional Centre.
