The younger brother of Nnamdi Kanu, the incarcerated leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Emmanuel Kanu, has contested the legality of his brother’s terrorism conviction, claiming that any criminal conviction must be based on a law that was in effect at the time the verdict was rendered.
The younger Kanu defended the conviction in a statement released on Tuesday. According to him, the main question in the case is whether the conviction complies with Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that a person cannot be found guilty of a crime unless the crime and its punishment are specified in a written law.
He stated, “Any criminal conviction must be anchored on a valid law in force at the time judgment is delivered.”
According to Emmanuel Kanu, the IPOB leader frequently insisted that the court specify the precise statute that led to his conviction during the November 20, 2025, hearing.
He asserted that although Nigeria’s current anti-terrorism legislation is the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, the conviction purportedly relied on clauses from the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, which was repealed.
“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 stated.
However, he contended that the question of whether a conviction may be upheld without reference to an offense-creating law that is still in effect at the time of judgment is a constitutional problem that goes beyond whether processes can continue after a repeal.
He added, “The question is whether the conviction satisfies the constitutional requirement that both the offense and the punishment must be prescribed in a written law.”
Additionally, he asserted that the court’s failure to specifically cite a 2022 Act offence-creating clause as the foundation for the conviction raises questions about whether the ruling complies with constitutional requirements.
He pointed out that the defense had previously contested the ongoing use of the repealed laws, claiming that any conviction based on them would be void.
He claims that the court relied on transitional measures to protect the prosecution and allow the case to proceed even though it recognized that repealed legislation typically lose their legal force.
According to Prince Kanu, the case will now be examined by the Court of Appeal, where the Kanu camp is anticipated to contend that the prosecution must specify the current law that supports the conviction.
“The conviction could fail the constitutional test outlined in Section 36(12) of the Constitution if no such law is identified,” he stated. v
As required by the Constitution, he insisted that the appeal would finally decide whether the conviction was based on a legitimate and current legislation.
The Federal Government has charged Kanu with terrorism in connection with IPOB-related activities.
The case continues to get both domestic and foreign attention, making it one of Nigeria’s most carefully followed court cases.
After finding that Kanu’s extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria breached both domestic and international law, the Court of Appeal released him in October 2022.
The Supreme Court then overturned the discharge order and ordered the trial to proceed on its merits when the federal government contested the ruling.
Kanu was then found guilty and sentenced by the court when the hearings continued. He was then placed under remand at the Sokoto Correctional Center, where he is presently serving his term.
About The Author
