RismadarVoice Reporters
September 28, 2026
The family of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, has called for the immediate hearing of his appeal, while raising questions over the legal basis of his conviction by the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Prince Emmanuel Kanu, Kanu’s younger brother, made the demand on Monday on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu family and also called on the National Judicial Council to examine the conduct of Justice James Omotosho, who presided over the case.
Kanu was convicted on November 20, 2025, on seven terrorism-related counts. The court imposed life imprisonment on several counts, alongside additional prison terms that were ordered to run concurrently.
The family, however, argued that questions remained over the legislation relied upon in reaching the judgment.
It claimed that some of the charges were based on provisions of earlier terrorism legislation that had been repealed following the enactment of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
The family cited Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 Act and argued that the court should have specifically addressed the transitional provisions governing proceedings initiated under previous terrorism legislation.
It also invoked Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and its penalty prescribed in written law.
The family consequently asked the appellate court to determine which statutory provisions were in force and applicable to each of the offences for which Kanu was convicted.
It further raised fair-hearing concerns, alleging that Kanu was denied an opportunity to deliver a final address before judgment and was not afforded the required opportunity to make representations before sentencing.
During the November 20 proceedings, Kanu challenged the court’s decision to proceed without his final written address. The trial court nevertheless continued with the judgment after rejecting objections he had raised concerning the validity of the charges and other aspects of the proceedings.
The family also questioned the legal implications of the Court of Appeal’s October 2022 judgment concerning Kanu and the subsequent Supreme Court decision that allowed his prosecution to continue.
It argued that the appellate courts should clarify the precise legal foundation upon which proceedings resumed before the Federal High Court.
The family also expressed concern about what it described as delays in the progress of Kanu’s current appeal and called for the matter to be listed for hearing.
It urged the appellate court to determine the questions surrounding the applicable written law, jurisdiction, fair-hearing requirements and other constitutional issues raised against the conviction.
The family maintained that these questions could be resolved by examining the official court records and applicable legislation.
Kanu’s conviction remains subject to the appellate process, where the arguments challenging the Federal High Court judgment can be considered.
