Emmanuel Kanu, the younger brother of detained IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu, questioned the legal basis of his brother’s terrorism conviction and argued that any criminal judgment must be based on a valid law that is still in force at the time the verdict is delivered.
In a statement released on Tuesday, Emmanuel defended Nnamdi Kanu’s conduct during court proceedings, insisting that his actions were aimed at raising constitutional concerns rather than showing disrespect to the court.
According to him, the main issue is whether the conviction meets the requirements of Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that a person can only be convicted for an offence that is clearly defined in a written law, together with the punishment attached to it.
Emmanuel explained that during proceedings held on November 20, 2025, the detained IPOB leader repeatedly asked the court to identify the exact law upon which his conviction was based. He argued that although Nigeria currently operates under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, the prosecution’s case appeared to rely on provisions linked to the Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2013, which has since been repealed.
According to him, the prosecution originally filed the case under the 2013 law and continued with the matter after the introduction of the 2022 Act through a savings provision contained in the newer legislation. However, he maintained that the real constitutional question is not whether the case could continue after the repeal of the earlier law, but whether a conviction can stand if it is not tied to an offence-creating law that remains valid when judgment is delivered.
He further argued that the court did not clearly identify a specific offence-creating provision under the 2022 Act as the basis for the conviction. In his view, this raises legal questions about whether the judgment satisfies constitutional requirements.
Emmanuel noted that the defence team had previously challenged the continued reliance on the repealed law, insisting that any conviction built on such legislation would be defective. While acknowledging that the court relied on transitional provisions to allow the prosecution to proceed, he maintained that the issue would now be tested before the Court of Appeal.
According to him, the appeal court will examine whether the prosecution can point to a valid and existing law supporting the conviction. He argued that if such a law cannot be clearly identified, the conviction may not meet constitutional standards.
The case involving Nnamdi Kanu remains one of the country’s most closely watched legal matters. The Federal Government is prosecuting him over terrorism-related allegations connected to the activities of the Indigenous People of Biafra.
The legal battle has attracted widespread attention over the years. In October 2022, the Court of Appeal discharged Kanu after ruling that his transfer from Kenya to Nigeria violated both local and international laws. The Federal Government later challenged that decision, and the Supreme Court overturned the discharge order, directing that the trial continue.
Following the continuation of proceedings, Kanu was eventually convicted and sentenced by the court. He was later transferred to the Sokoto Correctional Centre, where he is currently serving his sentence while legal efforts to challenge the conviction continue.