The Okwu-Kanu Family has called for the hearing of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu’s, appeal, while questioning the legal basis of his conviction and sentence by the Federal High Court.
Prince Emmanuel Kanu, the IPOB leader’s younger brother, who spoke on Monday on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu Family, called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to examine the conduct of Justice James Omotosho in relation to the trial.
According to the family, Justice Omotosho said in open court on 4 November 2025 that “no written law, no conviction”, before delivering Kanu’s conviction on 20 November 2025.
The family argued that the conviction was entered under terrorism legislation that had been repealed, contending that the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022 provided transitional provisions for proceedings commenced under the previous legislation.
It specifically cited Sections 97 and 98(2) of the TPPA 2022, arguing that the trial court should have addressed the transition from the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, as amended in 2013, to the 2022 legislation.
Emmanuel Kanu said the judgment relied on the repealed terrorism legislation for Counts 1 to 6 and also raised questions concerning Count 7, which it said involved the Criminal Code Act and the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA).
It further argued that the court did not take a fresh plea under the corresponding provisions of the 2022 terrorism law or identify the applicable offence-creating and penalty-prescribing provisions under that legislation.
The family based its argument partly on Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and its penalty prescribed in a written law.
It asked: “What written law defined each offence and prescribed each penalty on 20 November 2025?”
He also referred to authorities cited in Justice Omotosho’s judgment, including State v Egigia and IGP v Ogundimu, which it said address the legal effect of repealed legislation.
It argued that the judge’s reference to Section 98(3) of the TPPA 2022 did not amount to the statutory transition contemplated by Sections 97 and 98(2).
He also raised fair-hearing concerns, alleging that Kanu was not given the opportunity to make a final address before judgment and was not afforded the required sentencing procedure, including allocutus.
The family further questioned the legal effect of the Court of Appeal’s 13 October 2022 decision, which it said discharged Kanu and quashed the relevant counts, as well as the subsequent Supreme Court order directing continuation of the proceedings.
He asked what proceeding legally existed when the case returned to the Federal High Court and what authority governed its continuation.
“Calling it ‘continuation’ does not answer those questions,” the family said. “The legal character of the proceeding must be established by the orders and the Constitution.”
The family also raised concerns over the progress of Kanu’s appeal, stating that the Federal Government’s time to file its respondent’s brief had expired and that the appeal remained unlisted.
It contrasted the delay with the constitution of a special panel within 14 days after the Court of Appeal’s 2022 decision, which it said enabled Kanu’s continued custody.
The family called for the appeal to be listed and for the courts to determine the questions surrounding the written law, jurisdiction and constitutional requirements applicable to Kanu’s conviction.
It also urged the NJC to examine the matter, saying the questions should be determined from the court record.
“Where is the written law?” the family asked.
It added: “Name the Act. Name the section. Show that it was in force. Show that it defined the offence. Show that it prescribed the penalty. Show the statutory transition. Show the constitutional authority.”