Emmanuel Kanu, younger brother of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, has challenged the legal foundation of his brother’s terrorism conviction, arguing that any criminal conviction must be anchored on a valid law in force at the time judgment is delivered.
In a statement shared on Tuesday, the younger Kanu defended the detained IPOB leader’s courtroom exchange with Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, describing it as “a legitimate constitutional challenge rather than an act of defiance.”
According to him, the issue at the centre of the case 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.
“Any criminal conviction must be anchored on a valid law in force at the time judgment is delivered,” he siad.
Emmanuel Kanu said that during proceedings on November 20, 2025, the IPOB leader repeatedly demanded that the court identify the specific law under which he was convicted.
He claimed that while the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, is Nigeria’s current terrorism law, the conviction allegedly relied on provisions associated with the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013.
He said, “The prosecution’s case was initially instituted under the 2013 law and continued after its repeal through a savings provision contained in Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act.”
He argued, however, that the constitutional issue extends beyond whether proceedings can continue after a repeal and concerns whether a conviction can be sustained without reference to an offence-creating law that remains in force at the time of judgment.
“The question is whether the conviction meets the constitutional requirement that both the offence and punishment must be prescribed in a written law,” he also said.
He further claimed that the court did not expressly identify a standalone offence-creating provision under the 2022 Act as the basis for the conviction, a development he said raises concerns about whether the judgment satisfies constitutional standards.
