Nnamdi Kanu's conviction challenged on jurisdiction and repealed terrorism law

Prince Emmanuel Kanu, brother of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu, has defended his sibling’s courtroom exchange, arguing that any criminal conviction must be based on an existing written law as required by Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution. The thread he shared claims the Federal High Court relied on the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 rather than the current Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, and questions whether transitional provisions can sustain a conviction when the offence‑creating statute has been repealed.

IPOB asserts that the Federal Government’s cross‑appeal further weakens the legal foundation of Kanu’s conviction, alleging that the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the sentencing stage and that procedural irregularities—use of repealed laws, denial of a fair hearing, and withheld evidence—render the conviction unsustainable. The appeal will examine whether the conviction can stand under the constitutional requirement that an offence and its penalty be defined in a written law at the time of conviction.