Fresh controversy has emerged over the terrorism conviction of the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, as his younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, has defended his insistence that the court clearly identify the law under which he was convicted and sentenced.
Key Highlights:
- Kanu’s brother says the court didn’t clearly state the law behind the conviction.
- He cites constitutional rules requiring offences to be in written law.
- Dispute centers on use of a repealed terrorism law.
- Defence argues the 2022 law replaced the old one.
- Appeal will decide if the conviction is valid.
In a detailed statement made available to journalists on Tuesday, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, argued that no Nigerian court can validly convict an individual unless both the alleged offence and its prescribed punishment are contained in an existing written law.
According to him, the issue extends beyond his brother’s case and concerns constitutional protections available to all Nigerians facing criminal prosecution.
He cited Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence and its penalty are defined in a written law.
Read Also:
- Troops crush IPOB/ESN hideouts, seize explosives, ₦2m ransom in Enugu
- IPOB commends Mark Arnold, US Lawmakers over comments on Nigeria, reiterates call for Biafra Referendum
- Army invite media, civil society to verify recovered IEDs in Imo after IPOB propaganda claims
Prince Kanu said the matter gained prominence during court proceedings on November 20, 2025, when Nnamdi Kanu reportedly challenged the court to identify the specific law supporting his conviction.
The Kanu family contends that a key legal question is whether a conviction can stand when the statute originally relied upon by the prosecution has since been repealed.
According to Prince Kanu, while the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, is currently the applicable law, the prosecution’s case was initially founded on provisions of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, which has been repealed.
He acknowledged that the court relied on transitional provisions contained in the 2022 Act, to allow the prosecution to continue but questioned whether such provisions are sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction under constitutional requirements.
He further argued that although repealed laws may retain limited effect through savings clauses that preserve ongoing proceedings, the central issue is whether such clauses can legally support a conviction after the original legislation has ceased to exist.
The Kanu family also maintains that constitutional requirements should apply at the time judgment is delivered and not solely when the alleged offence was committed.
Prince Kanu claimed that the court did not specifically identify an offence-creating provision under the 2022 Act, as the direct basis of the conviction, insisting that the matter should be resolved by the appellate court.
He also referenced a preliminary objection filed by the defence during the trial, challenging the continued reliance on a repealed statute.
According to him, the defence argued that any prosecution or conviction founded on such a law would be invalid.
The family believes the appellate court will ultimately determine whether there was a valid written law in force at the time the conviction was entered and whether the judgment satisfies the requirements of Section 36(12) of the Constitution.
Nnamdi Kanu was convicted on terrorism-related charges in 2025 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has since filed an appeal seeking to overturn the conviction.
The outcome of the appeal is expected to address the legal questions raised by his defence regarding the application of repealed and successor legislation in criminal proceedings.
