Fresh controversy has emerged over the terrorism conviction of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, following a strong defence of his courtroom position by his younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu.
Prince Emmanuel Kanu has thrown his weight behind his brother’s demand that the court clearly identify the law under which he was convicted and sentenced.
According to him, no Nigerian court can validly convict a person unless the alleged offence and its punishment are contained in an existing written law.
In a detailed explanation made available to POLITICS NIGERIA on Tuesday, Prince Emmanuel Kanu argued that the issue goes beyond his brother’s personal case and touches on constitutional safeguards designed to protect every Nigerian citizen.
He said the argument is rooted in Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence and its penalty are defined in a written law.
According to him, the matter came into sharp focus during court proceedings on November 20, 2025, when Nnamdi Kanu openly challenged the court to “show me the law,” insisting that the specific legislation supporting his conviction should be identified.
The Kanu family maintains that the legal question is whether a conviction can stand when the law originally relied upon has been repealed.
Prince Emmanuel Kanu argued that while the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 is now the extant legislation, the prosecution’s case was initially built around provisions of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013, which has since been repealed.
According to the position outlined by him, the court relied on transitional provisions contained in the 2022 Act to allow the prosecution to continue. However, he questioned whether those provisions are enough to sustain a criminal conviction under constitutional standards.
He further stated that repealed laws generally lose their legal force, although savings clauses may preserve pending proceedings. The major legal issue, according to him, is whether such clauses can legally support a conviction after the original law has ceased to exist.
The Kanu camp also argued that the constitutional requirement should apply at the time judgment is delivered and not only when the alleged offence was committed.
Prince Emmanuel Kanu claimed that the court did not specifically point to an offence-creating provision under the 2022 Act that directly formed the basis of the conviction. He insisted that this question must be settled by the appellate court.
He also referred to a preliminary objection filed by Nnamdi Kanu, which challenged the continued use of a repealed statute during the trial. According to him, the defence maintained that any prosecution or conviction founded on such a law would be invalid.
The family believes the Court of Appeal will have to determine whether there was a valid written law in force at the time the conviction was entered. They argue that if no such law is identified, the judgment may not satisfy the requirements of Section 36(12) of the Constitution.
Recall, Politics Nigeria earlier reported that Nnamdi Kanu was convicted on terrorism-related charges in 2025 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has since filed an appeal against the judgment and is seeking to overturn the conviction.