The family of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has demanded the immediate listing of his appeal challenging his conviction.
In a statement signed by Prince Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu family of Umuahia, Abia State, the family also called for an investigation into the conduct of the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho.
The family alleged that Kanu was denied a fair hearing during the trial and urged the relevant authorities to examine the proceedings.
The development comes amid concerns raised by IPOB and Kanu’s legal team over the delay in listing the appeal. IPOB had threatened a boycott of the 2027 elections in the South-East over the matter, while the group and Kanu’s lawyers have accused the Federal Government of avoiding the appeal process following reports that the prosecution had yet to file its response.
Outlining its demands to the Court of Appeal, the Okwu-Kanu family said:
“List the appeal. Determine the written-law question. Determine the jurisdictional questions. Apply the Constitution. Apply the statutes enacted by the National Assembly. And where the conviction cannot survive those requirements, quash it.”
The family also called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to examine Justice Omotosho’s conduct during the trial.
“We call upon the National Judicial Council (NJC) to examine, on the record, the conduct of a judge who stated the governing constitutional rule, invoked the authority that says a repealed law has no legal life, confronted the repeal and transition provisions, and nevertheless proceeded to convict under the repealed legal regime,” the statement added.
The family further questioned the legal basis for Kanu’s conviction and challenged the court to identify the written law under which he was convicted.
“Omotosho — show us the law,” the family demanded in the statement.
The Okwu-Kanu family also raised five questions which it said the Court of Appeal must resolve, or alternatively release Kanu.
“The five questions. Answer them, or release him. ONE. Under section 36(12), what written law — not a repealed Act and not a savings clause standing alone — defined each offence and prescribed its penalty on 20 November 2025? Name the Act. Name the section. Show that it was in force.
“TWO. Under sections 97 and 98(2) of the TPPA 2022, where is the statutory transition? Show the corresponding provisions. Show the operative charge. Show the plea. Show the convicting provisions. Show the transit.
“THREE. Under section 122 of the Evidence Act, when did the court take judicial notice of the repeal of the 2013 terrorism legislation and CEMA, and what legal consequence did the court give that repeal?
“FOUR. Under section 36(1), was Kanu afforded the constitutionally guaranteed fair-hearing process, including his final address, before judgment and the required sentencing procedure before sentence?
“FIVE. Under section 36(9), what was the constitutional effect of the 13 October 2022 discharge and quashing of the counts, and where is the legal authority for the subsequent proceeding?”
The family maintained that Justice Omotosho denied Kanu the fair hearing guaranteed under Section 36(1) of the Constitution.
“He denied the fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36(1).
Section 36(1) guarantees a fair hearing in the determination of criminal liability. That guarantee governs the process by which the state seeks to take away a person’s liberty.
“Kanu was entitled to the constitutionally guaranteed opportunity to make his final address before judgment. He was also entitled to the procedural protections governing sentencing, including allocutus. The record shows what happened. The final address was not given as the Constitution required. The allocutus was not given as the law required. That is not a cosmetic defect. It is not courtroom etiquette. It is not a minor procedural blemish. It goes to the fairness of the criminal adjudication itself. You cannot separate a life sentence from the process that produced it.”
