Kanu’s conviction not rooted in Nigerian law — Brother alleges
By Taiwo Scholarstica
Emmanuel Kanu, younger brother of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has questioned the legal basis of his brother’s terrorism conviction, insisting that no one can be convicted unless the offence is clearly provided for in a valid law.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, he emphasized that the core issue of the case is compliance with Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which dictates that a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless it is defined by a written law.
He described his brother’s exchange with Justice James Omotosho during proceedings on November 20, 2025, as a constitutional challenge rather than defiance of the court.
Emmanuel Kanu argued that the conviction should be reviewed to determine whether it was based on a valid and existing law at the time judgment was delivered. He maintained that any criminal judgment must clearly identify the law under which the offence and punishment are prescribed.
According to him, while the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 is currently in force, the conviction was allegedly linked to provisions of the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013.
He explained that although the prosecution began under the 2013 law and was continued through transitional provisions in the 2022 Act, the key question is whether a conviction can stand without a clear offence-creating provision in force at the time of judgment.
He also claimed that the court did not clearly point to a specific section of the current law used to support the conviction, raising concerns about constitutional compliance.
Emmanuel Kanu said the matter would now be addressed at the Court of Appeal, where the defence plans to argue that the conviction does not meet constitutional requirements.
He insisted that if no valid law is identified, the judgment may not withstand legal scrutiny.
Nnamdi Kanu remains in custody after being convicted of terrorism-related charges filed by the Federal Government over IPOB-related activities.
His case continues to attract widespread attention and has gone through several legal rulings, including a Court of Appeal decision in 2022 that discharged him, which was later set aside by the Supreme Court, allowing the trial to continue.