The legal battle over Nnamdi Kanu’s conviction is taking a fresh turn, with his family asking the appellate court to confront a fundamental question: what specific written law was in force, defined the alleged offences and prescribed the penalties when the IPOB leader was convicted?

The Okwu-Kanu family, in a fresh demand for the hearing of Kanu’s appeal, said the question goes beyond the merits of the allegations against him and strikes at the legal foundation of the November 20, 2025 judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

Kanu was convicted by Justice James Omotosho on seven terrorism-related counts and sentenced to life imprisonment on four counts, with additional terms on two others, all ordered to run concurrently. His legal team announced immediately after the judgment that the decision would be challenged at the Court of Appeal. (Channels Television⁠)

But speaking on Monday for the Okwu-Kanu family, his younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, shifted attention to what the family described as unresolved questions surrounding the legislation under which the conviction was entered.

He also called on the National Judicial Council to examine the conduct of Justice Omotosho during the proceedings.

The family’s argument centres on the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 and its transitional provisions, which it says must be considered against the earlier Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, as amended in 2013.

According to Emmanuel, the trial court ought to have established how proceedings commenced under the earlier legislation were legally carried into the 2022 Act before reaching its verdict.

The family specifically cited Sections 97 and 98(2) of the 2022 law, arguing that the court did not sufficiently address the statutory transition it says was required.

It further alleged that Counts One to Six were determined on the basis of provisions of the repealed legislation, while Count Seven raised separate questions involving the Criminal Code Act and the Customs and Excise Management Act.

At the heart of the family’s challenge is Section 36(12) of the 1999 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.

“What written law defined each offence and prescribed each penalty on 20 November 2025?” Emmanuel asked.

The family also pointed to a statement it attributed to Justice Omotosho during proceedings on November 4, 2025, that “no written law, no conviction”, arguing that the principle should be tested against the final judgment.

The latest challenge therefore seeks to move the appeal beyond a general dispute over the conviction and towards specific questions about the applicable statute, the status of repealed legislation and the constitutional requirements for criminal convictions.

The family also questioned whether the court properly dealt with Kanu’s opportunity to make a final address and the sentencing procedure, including allocutus.

Another issue raised was the legal effect of the October 13, 2022 Court of Appeal decision which, according to the family, discharged Kanu and quashed the relevant counts before the Supreme Court subsequently ordered that the proceedings continue.

Emmanuel questioned the legal character of the proceedings when the case returned to the Federal High Court, arguing that describing the process as a “continuation” did not, by itself, resolve the underlying legal questions.

The family further expressed concern over the progress of Kanu’s appeal, claiming that the Federal Government’s period for filing its respondent’s brief had elapsed while the appeal remained unlisted.

The demand comes against the backdrop of the Federal High Court’s earlier rejection of Kanu’s objections, including arguments relating to fair hearing and the use of repealed terrorism legislation. The court proceeded to judgment after holding that the prosecution had established the seven counts beyond reasonable doubt. (Premium Times Nigeria⁠)

The Okwu-Kanu family is now asking the appellate process to determine the questions it says go to the foundation of the conviction, while also urging the NJC to examine the matter from the court record.

Its central demand was framed as a series of legal tests: “Name the Act. Name the section. Show that it was in force. Show that it defined the offence. Show that it prescribed the penalty. Show the statutory transition. Show the constitutional authority.”