Prince Emmanuel Kanu, younger brother to the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu has backed his brother’s courtroom exchange with Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja raising fresh questions over the legal foundation of his conviction.
Prince Kanu insisted that any criminal conviction must be based on an extant written law in force at the time of judgment.
In a detailed thread shared by Prince Emmanuel Kanu with THE WHISTLER on Tuesday, the court proceedings were described as centering on a fundamental constitutional question anchored on Section 36 (12) of the Nigerian Constitution, which prohibits conviction for any offence not defined and prescribed in a written law.
According to the account, during proceedings on 20 November 2025, Nnamdi Kanu directly challenged the court to “show me the law,” demanding the specific extant statute that defined the offence and prescribed its punishment at the time of conviction.
The thread alleges that the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, which is cited as the current law, was not expressly relied upon in the conviction, while the court instead referenced provisions linked to the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013.
It further stated that the prosecution’s case was originally anchored on the 2013 law, despite its repeal, and that the court relied on a savings provision contained in Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act to sustain ongoing proceedings.
Prince Emmanuel Kanu also referenced portions of the judgment in which the court acknowledged that repealed laws generally lose legal effect, but maintained that transitional provisions may preserve certain proceedings.
The argument, according to the thread, is whether such provisions can validly sustain a conviction where the offence-creating law has been repealed.
Central to the argument is Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which states that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its penalty are defined in a written law. The Kanu camp maintains that the constitutional requirement applies at the point of conviction and not merely at the time of alleged conduct.
The thread further claims that the court did not explicitly identify a standalone offence-creating provision under the 2022 Act that directly supported the conviction, raising questions – according to the argument presented – about whether the legal basis met constitutional standards.
It also noted that the preliminary objection filed by Kanu challenged the continued reliance on a repealed statute and argued that any trial or conviction based on such a law would be void.
According to his explanation, Justice Omotosho had previously cited authorities suggesting that proceedings conducted under a repealed law are a nullity, but also relied on statutory transition clauses to justify continuity of the prosecution process.
The issue, as framed by the Kanu camp, is now expected to be further examined on appeal, where they argue that the Court of Appeal must clearly identify the specific written law in force at the time of conviction that supports the judgment delivered.
If no such law is identified, they contend, the conviction would fail the constitutional requirement under Section 36(12).
Kanu was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in 2025 on terrorism-related charges. He has recently appealed his conviction.
(The Whistler)