Prince Emmanuel Kanu, younger brother of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has expressed support for his brother's courtroom confrontation with Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja. This development has sparked fresh questions regarding the legal basis of the conviction.
Courtroom Exchange Raises Legal Questions
During proceedings on November 20, 2025, Nnamdi Kanu challenged the court to identify the specific law under which he was convicted. He reportedly asked the court to "show me the law" that defined the offense and prescribed its punishment at the time the judgment was delivered.
In a statement, Prince Kanu argued that any criminal conviction must be grounded in an existing written law that was in force at the time of judgment. He emphasized that this principle is a fundamental constitutional matter.
Constitutional Requirements Under Section 36(12)
The court proceedings centered on Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which stipulates that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offense unless that offense and its penalty are defined and prescribed in a written law. Prince Kanu noted that this constitutional requirement applies at the point of conviction, not merely at the time of the alleged conduct.
The Kanu camp alleges that the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, cited as the current law, was not expressly relied upon in the conviction. Instead, the court referenced provisions linked to the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013. The prosecution's case was originally anchored on the 2013 law, despite its repeal, and the court relied on a savings provision in Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act to sustain ongoing proceedings.
Legal Arguments on Repealed Laws
Prince Kanu referenced portions of the judgment where the court acknowledged that repealed laws generally lose legal effect but maintained that transitional provisions may preserve certain proceedings. He argued that the key legal question is whether such transitional clauses can validly sustain a conviction when the law creating the offense has already been repealed.
He added, "Central to the argument is Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which states that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offense unless the offense and its penalty are defined in a written law. The Kanu camp maintains that the constitutional requirement applies at the point of conviction and not merely at the time of alleged conduct."
Questions About Legal Basis
The court did not explicitly identify a standalone offense-creating provision under the 2022 Act that directly supported the conviction. This raises questions about whether the legal basis met constitutional standards, according to the argument presented by the Kanu camp.
The preliminary objection filed by Kanu challenged the continued reliance on a repealed statute and argued that any trial or conviction based on such a law would be void. Justice Omotosho had previously cited authorities suggesting that proceedings conducted under a repealed law are a nullity but also relied on statutory transition clauses to justify continuity of the prosecution process.
Appeal Process Ahead
The issue, as framed by the Kanu camp, is now expected to be further examined on appeal. They argue that the Court of Appeal must clearly identify the specific written law in force at the time of conviction that supports the judgment delivered. If no such law is identified, they contend, the conviction would fail the constitutional requirement under Section 36(12).
Nnamdi Kanu was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 2025 on terrorism-related charges. He has recently appealed his conviction.
