Kanu’s Family Rejects Court Ruling, Says Judgment Violates Constitutional Safeguards

The family of the detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has expressed strong disagreement with the recent judgment by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

In a statement signed by Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu Kanu family, they said they were speaking “with heavy hearts but absolute clarity,” insisting that several key legal arguments they raised were overlooked.

The family said they drew the court’s attention to Section 36(12) of the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions on repealed laws, and previous directives linked to earlier charges. They stressed that the Constitution clearly provides that no one can be convicted for an offence not defined in a written law in force at the time, and argued that past Supreme Court rulings uphold this principle.

They further questioned the court’s reliance on a transition or savings clause, insisting it could not apply in this case. According to them, the Court of Appeal had already discharged and acquitted Kanu — an action they say “terminated all charges,” meaning the fresh charges before Justice Omotosho amounted to “a new case, commencing de novo.”

The family maintained that constitutional rights including the right to be tried only under existing laws, to be informed of valid charges, and not to be convicted under repealed laws cannot be overridden.

They argued that “no transition clause can override Section 36, no statute can override the Constitution, and no judge can override the Supreme Court,” calling for strict adherence to established legal processes.

PUNCH Online earlier reported that the Federal High Court in Abuja sentenced Nnamdi Kanu to life imprisonment on five counts of terrorism, with additional jail terms of 20 years and five years on two other counts, all without an option of fine. Justice Omotosho convicted him on all seven counts before delivering the sentence.

The Kanu family insists the ruling stands on shaky legal ground and urged the judiciary to uphold constitutional integrity.