Follow Us on Google
From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The family of detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has asked the National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court over his handling of the trial that resulted in Kanu’s conviction and life imprisonment.
The family accused the judge of convicting Kanu under terrorism and customs laws that had been repealed before judgment was delivered, an allegation that also forms part of Kanu’s pending appeal against his conviction.
In a statement dated September 27, 2026, issued by Prince Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu family, the family alleged that Justice Omotosho had stated in open court on November 4, 2025 that there could be “no written law, no conviction,” but subsequently convicted Kanu on November 20.
Justice Omotosho convicted Kanu on seven terrorism-related counts on November 20, 2025, sentencing him to life imprisonment on four counts, 20 years on another and five years on a further count, with the sentences to run concurrently.
The family argued that the conviction relied on provisions of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011, as amended in 2013, even though that legislation had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022.
The 2022 Act repealed the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 but also contains savings and transitional provisions dealing with ongoing cases and actions commenced under the repealed legislation.
The family contended that Sections 97 and 98 of the 2022 Act required proceedings commenced under the old law to continue under corresponding provisions of the new legislation.
It alleged that no fresh plea was taken from Kanu under the 2022 Act and that the judgment did not identify corresponding provisions of the new law under which, in the family’s view, the offences and penalties were sustained.
The family also questioned the treatment of a count under the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), arguing that the legislation had been repealed by the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023.
Section 280 of the Nigeria Customs Service Act 2023 indeed repeals CEMA, while also preserving certain actions and instruments made under the repealed legislation.
The family further faulted the judge’s reliance on what it described as the savings provisions of the 2022 terrorism law, insisting that a savings clause could not, by itself, create an offence or prescribe a punishment.
It cited State v. Egigia (2024) LPELR-62009(SC) and IGP v. Ogundimu (2022) in support of its contention that criminal liability must be anchored on a subsisting written law.
The family consequently listed several constitutional and procedural grounds on which it asked the NJC to examine the judge’s conduct.
Other News
They include Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence and penalty are prescribed in a written law, as well as the family’s allegation that the transitional provisions of the TPPA 2022 were not properly applied.
It also cited Section 122 of the Evidence Act on judicial notice of Nigerian laws and Section 36(1) of the Constitution on fair hearing.
The family alleged that Kanu was denied an opportunity to make a proper final address before judgment and was also denied allocutus before sentence was imposed.
However, reports of proceedings before judgment indicated that Justice Omotosho had held that Kanu failed to open his defence despite being given several days to do so and consequently could not complain that he had been denied fair hearing.
The family also invoked Section 36(9) of the Constitution in relation to the Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2022 judgment discharging Kanu and the subsequent Supreme Court decision that allowed the criminal proceedings against him to continue.
The family further raised concern over the delay in hearing Kanu’s appeal against the November 20, 2025 conviction.
It alleged that the Federal Government failed to file its respondent’s brief within the prescribed period and said the substantive appeal had still not been listed for hearing.
Similar concerns were raised earlier in September by one of Kanu’s lawyers, Onyedikachi Ifedi, who alleged that the Court of Appeal had yet to list the appeal and that the Federal Government had not filed its respondent’s brief within time.
Kanu’s family had also previously said his appellant’s brief was filed and served on June 5, 2026, while the substantive appeal, numbered CA/ABJ/CR/393/2026, remained pending.
The family demanded that the appeal be listed and determined and urged the appellate court to quash the conviction if it found that the constitutional and statutory requirements for the offences and sentences were not satisfied.
It also asked the NJC to investigate Justice Omotosho’s conduct in the proceedings.
The statement referred to the slogan, “Omotosho, show us the law,” which has circulated among Kanu’s supporters, and posed questions it said the judiciary should answer over the statutory basis of the conviction.
Neither Justice Omotosho, the Federal High Court, the NJC nor the Federal Government had responded to the latest allegations at press time.
