The family of detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu has demanded the immediate listing and determination of his appeal against his conviction and life imprisonment.
The Okwu-Kanu family of Umuahia, Abia State, also called for a judicial review of the conduct of the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho, during the proceedings that culminated in Kanu’s conviction.
In a statement signed by Prince Emmanuel Kanu, the family said the Court of Appeal must address what it described as fundamental constitutional and legal questions surrounding the conviction.
According to the family, the appellate court should determine the jurisdictional and written-law issues raised by Kanu’s defence and consider the relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution and applicable legislation.
The 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 petitioned the National Judicial Council (NJC), urging the body to examine Justice Omotosho’s conduct during the trial.
It alleged that the judge acknowledged constitutional and legal provisions concerning repealed legislation but nevertheless proceeded to convict Kanu under what the family described as a repealed legal regime.
“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on the record, the conduct of a judge who stated the governing constitutional rule, invoked the authority that says a repealed law has no legal life, confronted the repeal and transition provisions, and nevertheless proceeded to convict under the repealed legal regime,” the statement said.
The family further questioned the legal foundation of the conviction, challenging Justice Omotosho to identify the written law under which Kanu was convicted.
“Omotosho — show us the law,” it stated.
Family Raises Five Legal Questions
The Okwu-Kanu family identified five key issues it wants the Court of Appeal to resolve in determining the legality of Kanu’s conviction.
One of the questions concerns whether a written law was in force on November 20, 2025, defining the offences for which Kanu was convicted and prescribing their penalties, as required under Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution.
The family also questioned the statutory transition provisions under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and the legal consequences of the repeal of earlier terrorism legislation.
It further raised questions concerning Kanu’s constitutional right to a fair hearing and the legal effect of the October 13, 2022, Court of Appeal decision that discharged him and quashed the counts against him.
On fair hearing, the family alleged that Justice Omotosho denied Kanu an opportunity to make his final address before judgment and failed to follow the required sentencing procedure.
“He denied the fair hearing guaranteed by Section 36(1),” the statement said.
The family argued that the alleged procedural issues were fundamental because, in its view, criminal proceedings resulting in a life sentence must comply with constitutional safeguards governing fair trial rights.
Kanu was convicted by the Federal High Court in Abuja on November 20, 2025, and sentenced to life imprisonment on terrorism-related counts.
Court Remands Four Alleged IPOB Members
Meanwhile, the Federal High Court in Abuja has remanded four alleged IPOB members over their alleged involvement in the abduction and killing of a Department of State Services (DSS) operative, Ekpeyong Asuquo Owoh.
The defendants are Michael Okafor, also known as Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Joseph Chukwudozie, alias Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa, alias Ability.
They were arraigned before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik on a six-count charge bordering on terrorism and the alleged kidnapping of the DSS operative.
The prosecution alleged that the defendants conspired to commit acts of terrorism and abducted Owoh while he was travelling from Port Harcourt, Rivers State, to Awka, Anambra State.
They were also accused of belonging to IPOB and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), as well as unlawfully possessing firearms, including AK-47 and pump-action rifles.
The four defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Following their pleas, DSS counsel, Munirat Oladunjoye, told the court that the prosecution had three witnesses ready to testify and requested a date for trial.
Justice Abdulmalik subsequently fixed October 6 for the commencement of trial and ordered that the defendants remain in DSS custody pending further proceedings.
