The family of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has demanded the immediate listing of his appeal against his conviction and life imprisonment.
This is just as it called for a judicial review of the conduct of the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho.
The Okwu-Kanu family of Umuahia, Abia State, made the demands in a statement signed by Prince Emmanuel Kanu, insisting that the Court of Appeal must address what it described as fundamental constitutional and legal questions surrounding the conviction.
Politics Nigeria reports that the family further alleged that Kanu was denied a fair hearing during the trial and questioned the legal basis on which he was convicted.
It specifically urged the Court of Appeal to list and determine Kanu’s appeal, examine the jurisdictional issues raised by his defence and apply the relevant provisions of the 1999 Constitution and laws enacted by the National Assembly.
“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 said.
The family also petitioned the National Judicial Council, NJC, to examine Justice Omotosho’s conduct during the proceedings.
It alleged that the judge acknowledged constitutional and legal provisions relating to repealed legislation but nevertheless proceeded to convict Kanu under what the family described as a repealed legal regime.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on the record, the conduct of a judge who stated the governing constitutional rule, invoked the authority that says a repealed law has no legal life, confronted the repeal and transition provisions, and nevertheless proceeded to convict under the repealed legal regime,” the statement said.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 challenged the legal foundation of the conviction, demanding that Justice Omotosho identify the written law under which Kanu was convicted.
“Omotosho — show us the law,” it said.
The family raised five questions which it said the Court of Appeal must resolve in determining the legality of the conviction.
Among them is whether there was a written law in force on November 20, 2025, defining the offences for which Kanu was convicted and prescribing their penalties, as required by Section 36(12) of the Constitution.
It also questioned the statutory transition provisions under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, the effect of the repeal of earlier terrorism legislation, whether Kanu received the constitutionally guaranteed fair-hearing process and the legal effect of the October 13, 2022, Court of Appeal decision which discharged him and quashed the counts against him.
On fair hearing, the family specifically accused Justice Omotosho of denying Kanu an opportunity to make his final address before judgment and of failing 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 denial was fundamental because, in its view, the process leading to a life sentence cannot be separated from the constitutional safeguards governing a criminal trial.
Kanu was convicted by the Federal High Court in Abuja on November 20, 2025, and sentenced to life imprisonment on terrorism-related counts.
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 operative, Ekpeyong Asuquo Owoh.
The defendants—Michael Okafor, also known as Onyechimeleze; Chinedu Joseph Chukwudozie, alias Kante; Chibunna Olisa; and Chigozie Olisa, alias Ability—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 being members of 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.
