The family of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra, has called for the immediate hearing of his appeal and questioned the legal basis of his conviction and sentence by the Federal High Court.
Speaking on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu family on Monday, Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, also urged the National Judicial Council to examine the conduct of Justice James Omotosho during the trial.
The family alleged that the conviction was based on provisions of terrorism legislation that had been repealed, citing the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 and its transitional provisions.
It specifically referenced Sections 97 and 98 of the Act, arguing that the trial court ought to have addressed the legal transition from the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, as amended in 2013.
The family also questioned the legal basis of the charges against Kanu, including Counts One to Six, which it said relied on the repealed legislation, as well as Count Seven, which it said involved provisions of the Criminal Code Act and the Customs and Excise Management Act.
It further cited Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and its penalty prescribed by written law.
The family also raised concerns about the conduct of the trial, alleging that Kanu was not given an opportunity to make a final address before judgment and was not afforded the required sentencing procedure.
It questioned the legal effect of the Court of Appeal’s 2022 decision discharging Kanu and quashing relevant counts, as well as the subsequent Supreme Court order directing the continuation of proceedings.
The family also expressed concern over the progress of Kanu’s appeal, claiming that the Federal Government’s deadline to file its respondent’s brief had expired while the appeal remained unlisted.
It called for the appeal to be listed and for the courts to determine the legal and constitutional questions surrounding Kanu’s conviction.
The family also urged the National Judicial Council to examine the matter based on the court record.
