Nnamdi Kanu’s brother challenges IPOB leader’s terrorism conviction

Emmanuel Kanu, the younger brother of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu, has questioned the legal foundation of his brother's terrorism conviction. He asserts that criminal convictions must be anchored on laws that are valid and in effect at the time a judgment is delivered.

Emmanuel Kanu defended his brother's courtroom exchange with Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, characterizing it as a "legitimate constitutional challenge" rather than defiance. The core issue, he stated, is whether the conviction adheres to Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates that offenses and their penalties must be prescribed in a written law.

According to Emmanuel Kanu, Nnamdi Kanu repeatedly asked the court to specify the law under which he was convicted. He claimed the prosecution's case, initially filed under the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act of 2013, continued after its repeal, allegedly relying on a savings provision in the 2022 Act. The central argument is that a conviction cannot stand if it is not based on an offense-creating law that remains in force when the judgment is rendered.

“

Any criminal conviction must be anchored on a valid law in force at the time judgment is delivered.

"The question is whether the conviction meets the constitutional requirement that both the offence and punishment must be prescribed in a written law," Emmanuel Kanu stated. He further alleged that the court failed to explicitly identify a standalone offense-creating provision under the 2022 Act as the basis for the conviction, raising concerns about the judgment's constitutionality.

The defense had previously argued that convictions based on repealed legislation would be invalid. While the court acknowledged that repealed laws generally lose legal effect, it reportedly used transitional provisions to allow the prosecution to continue. The Kanu camp plans to argue before the Court of Appeal that the prosecution must clearly identify the specific law underpinning the conviction.

“

The question is whether the conviction meets the constitutional requirement that both the offence and punishment must be prescribed in a written law.