Emmanuel Kanu, younger brother of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has challenged the legal basis of his brother’s terrorism conviction, arguing that any criminal conviction must be founded on a valid law in force at the time judgment is delivered.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, he defended Nnamdi Kanu’s recent courtroom exchange with Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, describing it as a constitutional challenge rather than an act of defiance.
According to him, the central issue in the case is whether the conviction complies with Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that no person can be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its penalty are prescribed in a written law.
“Any criminal conviction must be anchored on a valid law in force at the time judgment is delivered,” he said.
Emmanuel Kanu said that during proceedings on November 20, 2025, the IPOB leader repeatedly requested that the court identify the specific law under which he was convicted.
He claimed that while the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, is the current legal framework on terrorism in Nigeria, the conviction was allegedly based on provisions of the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013.
According to him, the prosecution was initially instituted under the 2013 Act and continued after its repeal through a savings provision contained in Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act.
He argued, however, that the constitutional question goes beyond whether proceedings can continue after repeal, and instead concerns whether a conviction can stand without reference to an offence-creating provision still in force 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 contended that the court did not clearly identify any standalone offence-creating provision under the 2022 Act as the basis of the conviction, raising concerns about compliance with constitutional standards.
He noted that the defence had previously objected to continued reliance on the repealed legislation, arguing that any conviction founded on an expired law would be invalid.
According to him, although the court acknowledged that repealed laws generally cease to have effect, it relied on transitional provisions to sustain the prosecution and allow the trial to proceed.
Prince Kanu said the matter would now be determined by the Court of Appeal, where the defence 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.
He maintained that the appeal would ultimately determine whether the conviction was grounded in a valid and existing law as required by the Constitution.
Kanu is facing terrorism-related charges filed by the Federal Government over activities linked to IPOB.
The case remains one of Nigeria’s most closely watched legal battles, drawing both domestic and international attention.
In October 2022, the Court of Appeal discharged Kanu after ruling that his extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria violated both domestic and international law.
However, the Federal Government appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court later set aside the discharge order and directed that the trial continue on its merits.
Following the continuation of proceedings, Kanu was subsequently convicted and sentenced, and is currently being held at the Sokoto Correctional Centre, where he is serving his sentence.
