The younger brother of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Emmanuel Kanu, has raised questions over the legal foundation of the separatist leader’s terrorism conviction.
According to Punch, Emmanuel made the remarks in a statement issued on Tuesday while reacting to an exchange between his brother and James Omotosho, judge of a federal high court in Abuja, during proceedings in 2025.
He described the courtroom exchange as “a legitimate constitutional challenge rather than an act of defiance”.
Emmanuel argued that the main issue in the case centres on compliance with section 36(12) of the 1999 constitution, which states that no person can be convicted of a criminal offence unless it is defined in written law with a corresponding penalty.
“Any criminal conviction must be anchored on a valid law in force at the time judgment is delivered,” Emmanuel was quoted as saying.
He said that during the hearing on November 20, 2025, Nnamdi Kanu repeatedly demanded clarification on the specific law under which he was convicted.
He noted that while the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 is the current terrorism law, the conviction was allegedly tied to provisions of the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013.
“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 said.
“The question is whether the conviction meets the constitutional requirement that both the offence and punishment must be prescribed in a written law,”
Emmanuel further claimed that the court did not clearly point to a specific offence-creating section under the 2022 law used to justify the conviction.
He added that the defence had earlier objected to reliance on the repealed law, arguing that any conviction based on it would be invalid.
Although he acknowledged that courts generally treat repealed laws as inactive, he said the trial court relied on transitional provisions to continue proceedings.
Emmanuel stated that the matter would be determined at the court of appeal, where the defence would argue that the prosecution must clearly identify the valid 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,” Emmanuel said.
He added that the appeal would determine whether the judgment was based on a valid and existing law as required by the constitution.
In November 2025, Omotosho, the presiding judge, sentenced the IPOB leader to life imprisonment on terrorism charges.
Kanu was handed life imprisonment for counts one, four, five and six of the seven-count charges.
He also received 20 years and five years imprisonment on counts three and seven respectively.
He is currently serving his sentence at the correctional centre in Sokoto.
In an appeal filed on February 4 at the court of appeal in Abuja, Kanu is seeking to overturn his conviction and sentence.