Emmanuel Kanu, the younger brother of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu, has questioned the legal foundation of his brother’s terrorism conviction, insisting that any criminal judgment must be based on an existing law at the time it is delivered.

In a statement issued on Tuesday, Emmanuel Kanu defended his brother’s courtroom conduct before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, describing it as a constitutional challenge rather than misconduct or defiance.

He argued that the central issue in the case relates to Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that no person can be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and its penalty are defined in a written law.

“Any criminal conviction must be anchored on a valid law in force at the time judgment is delivered,” he said.

Emmanuel Kanu said that during court proceedings on November 20, 2025, the IPOB leader repeatedly demanded clarification on the specific law under which he was convicted.

He alleged that while the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 is currently in force, the conviction was linked to provisions of the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013.

According to him, the prosecution originally filed the case under the 2013 law, and the matter continued under transitional provisions contained in Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act after its repeal.

However, he maintained that the constitutional concern goes beyond whether a case can continue after repeal, arguing that a valid conviction must clearly be tied to an offence-creating provision that is still in force at the time of judgment.

“The question is whether the conviction meets the constitutional requirement that both the offence and punishment must be prescribed in a written law,” he added.

He further claimed that the court did not explicitly point to a specific provision under the 2022 Act as the legal basis for the conviction, raising questions about its constitutional validity.

Emmanuel Kanu also argued that the defence had earlier objected to reliance on the repealed law, maintaining that any conviction based on it would be legally defective.

He noted that although the court acknowledged that repealed laws generally cease to have effect, it relied on transitional provisions to allow the trial to continue.

He said the matter would now be decided at the Court of Appeal, where the defence is expected to argue that the prosecution must clearly establish the extant law supporting the conviction.

“If no such law is identified, the conviction could fail the constitutional test set out in Section 36(12) of the Constitution,” he said.

He added that the appeal would ultimately determine whether the conviction meets constitutional requirements.

Nnamdi Kanu is currently facing terrorism-related charges filed by the Federal Government over activities linked to IPOB.

His case has remained one of Nigeria’s most closely followed legal and political matters.

In 2022, the Court of Appeal discharged him after ruling that his extradition from Kenya violated legal procedures, but the Supreme Court later overturned that decision and ordered that the trial proceed.

Following the continuation of proceedings, Kanu was convicted and sentenced, and he is currently being held at the Sokoto Correctional Centre.