Nnamdi Kanu Conviction: Brother Challenges Legal Basis of Terrorism Judgment, Cites Constitutional Concerns
Fresh legal debate has surfaced over the terrorism conviction of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, after his younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, publicly defended the position he advanced in court regarding the legal foundation of the judgment.
Prince Emmanuel Kanu has backed his brother’s insistence that the court must clearly identify the specific law under which he was convicted and sentenced, arguing that such clarification is fundamental to the administration of justice.
In a detailed explanation obtained by PulseNets on Tuesday, Prince Emmanuel Kanu maintained that no Nigerian court can lawfully convict any individual unless the alleged offence and its corresponding punishment are expressly provided for in a valid written law.
He explained that the controversy extends beyond the personal circumstances of Nnamdi Kanu and raises broader constitutional questions intended to safeguard the rights of all Nigerian citizens.
According to him, the argument is anchored on Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which stipulates that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence and its penalty are prescribed in a written law.
Prince Emmanuel Kanu further stated that the issue gained significant attention during court proceedings on November 20, 2025, when Nnamdi Kanu openly challenged the court, demanding that it “show me the law,” while insisting that the legislation forming the basis of his conviction be clearly identified.
The Kanu family continues to question whether a criminal conviction can remain valid when the law initially relied upon by the prosecution has subsequently been repealed.
PulseNets learnt that Prince Emmanuel Kanu argued that although the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 is currently the operative legislation, the prosecution’s case was originally predicated on provisions contained in the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, which is no longer in force.
According to the position outlined by him, the court relied on transitional provisions contained in the 2022 Act to permit the continuation of the prosecution. However, he questioned whether such provisions are sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction under the standards required by the Constitution.
He also noted that while repealed laws generally cease to have legal effect, savings clauses may preserve ongoing proceedings. Nevertheless, he argued that the critical legal question remains whether those clauses can lawfully support a conviction after the original legislation has been repealed.
The Kanu family further contended that the constitutional requirement should be satisfied at the time a judgment is delivered and not merely at the time the alleged offence was committed.
Prince Emmanuel Kanu claimed that the court failed to specifically identify an offence-creating provision under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 that directly formed the basis of the conviction. He insisted that the issue would ultimately require determination by the appellate court.
He also referenced a preliminary objection filed by Nnamdi Kanu during the proceedings, challenging the continued reliance on a repealed statute throughout the trial process.
According to him, the defence consistently maintained that any prosecution or conviction founded upon a repealed law would be legally defective and incapable of standing.
Also Read: Nnamdi Kanu: Why Britain Opposes Biafra Discourse, Says Mike Arnold
The family believes the Court of Appeal will be required to determine whether there was a valid written law in force at the time the conviction was entered. They argue that where no such law can be clearly identified, the judgment may fall short of the constitutional requirements contained in Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution.
PulseNets reported that Nnamdi Kanu was convicted on terrorism-related charges in 2025 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has since lodged an appeal against the judgment and is seeking to have the conviction set aside.
