Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
The younger brother of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, has launched a scathing legal critique of his brother’s terrorism conviction, arguing that no Nigerian court can validly convict a person unless the offence and its punishment are contained in an existing written law at the time judgment is delivered. The challenge, which was contained in a statement made available to Politics Nigeria on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, escalates the legal battle surrounding one of Nigeria’s most closely watched cases by questioning the very constitutional foundation of the conviction.
Emmanuel Kanu specifically defended Nnamdi Kanu’s courtroom exchange with Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, during which the detained IPOB leader repeatedly demanded that the court “show me the law” used to convict him. According to Prince Kanu, the demand was “a legitimate constitutional challenge rather than an act of defiance”. The statement argued that the core issue is whether the conviction complies with Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its penalty are prescribed in a written law.
Prince Kanu argued that while the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, is Nigeria’s current terrorism law, the prosecution’s case was initially built around provisions of the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, and continued after the repeal through a savings provision in Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act. He maintained, however, that a conviction can be sustained only if an offence‑creating law remains 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,” he argued.
The legal argument now shifts to the Court of Appeal, where the Kanu family intends to press that the prosecution must clearly identify a standalone offence‑creating provision under the extant 2022 Act that directly formed the basis of the conviction. Prince Kanu stated that if no such law is identified, the conviction could fail the constitutional test set out in Section 36(12) of the Constitution. He also recalled that the defence had previously challenged the continued reliance on the repealed legislation, arguing that any conviction founded on such a law would be invalid.
In a parallel development, IPOB has argued that the Federal Government’s cross‑appeal in the case actually weakens the legal foundation of the conviction by raising significant questions about the jurisdiction of the trial court. According to the group, the Federal Government’s cross‑appeal “effectively acknowledged concerns regarding the trial court’s jurisdiction in parts of the sentencing process,” a development the group claimed undermines the validity of the conviction. IPOB insisted that “jurisdiction is not divisible. Jurisdiction is not a buffet. Jurisdiction is a continuum,” meaning that if a court lacked jurisdiction at the sentencing stage, the entire conviction would be invalid.
The timing of this renewed legal offensive is significant. Nnamdi Kanu was sentenced to life imprisonment by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja on November 20, 2025, after being found guilty on seven terrorism‑related charges. The prosecution had pursued the case after the Supreme Court, on December 15, 2023, reversed a Court of Appeal judgment that had discharged Kanu on the grounds that his extraordinary rendition from Kenya violated domestic and international law.
In a separate development, the United States Congress recently adopted a resolution urging the American Secretary of State to engage Nigeria on concerns relating to Kanu’s trial, detention conditions, and access to fundamental rights. The resolution, identified as H.Res. 1321 and introduced by Congressman John James, also referenced the findings of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which in 2022 concluded that Kanu’s detention breached international human rights obligations. The US lawmakers called on the Nigerian government to ensure that all judicial proceedings involving Kanu are handled in line with constitutional provisions and internationally recognised human rights standards.
The case has now evolved into a complex web of appeals, cross‑appeals, and constitutional questions that could shape the future of terrorism prosecutions in Nigeria. For the Kanu family, the central question remains unchanged: can a conviction stand without a valid written law supporting it at the time of judgment? That question now rests with the Court of Appeal.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com ✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments