(Nnamdi Kanu. Photo Credit: Nation News)
Emmanuel Kanu, younger brother of detained Indigenous People of Biafra leader 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 issued on Tuesday, Emmanuel 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.
At the centre of the argument 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.
Emmanuel claimed 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 alleged that while the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 is Nigeria’s current terrorism legislation, the conviction relied on provisions associated with the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013.
He noted that 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.
However, he argued that the constitutional question 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.
Emmanuel 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He noted that the defence had previously challenged the continued reliance on the repealed legislation, arguing that any conviction founded on such a law would be invalid.
He 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.
“If no such law is identified, the conviction could fail the constitutional test set out in Section 36(12) of the Constitution,” he said.
Nnamdi 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, drawing both local and international attention.
In October 2022, the Court of Appeal discharged Kanu after ruling that his extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria violated domestic and international law.
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 convicted, sentenced, and remanded at the Sokoto Correctional Centre, where he is currently serving his sentence.