The family of detained IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has rejected the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, describing it as legally flawed and inconsistent with constitutional provisions.
In a statement issued on Monday and signed by Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu Kanu family, they said they were speaking “with heavy hearts but absolute clarity” about the ruling that convicted Kanu of terrorism offences.
The family insisted that they had raised “several crucial legal issues” during the trial, citing Section 36(12) of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedents on repealed laws, and compliance with earlier judicial directives. They stressed that the Constitution is explicit: “No person shall be convicted unless the offence is defined in a written law in force at the time.”
According to them, existing Supreme Court decisions reinforce this safeguard, making the ruling difficult to reconcile with established legal standards.
The family further questioned the court’s reliance on transition or savings clauses, arguing that such provisions do not apply to Kanu’s case. “The Court of Appeal discharged and acquitted him. That decision terminated all charges,” they said, adding that the fresh charges before Justice Omotosho amounted to an entirely new case “commencing de novo.”
They maintained that “a case that was terminated cannot be ‘saved’ by a transition clause,” and reiterated that constitutional rights guaranteed under Section 36—particularly the right to be tried only under laws in force and the right not to be convicted under repealed or nonexistent laws—cannot be overridden.
Emphasising the supremacy of the Constitution, the family stated: “No transition clause can override Section 36. No statute can override the Constitution. No judge can override the Supreme Court.”
They urged the judiciary to uphold constitutional standards and ensure that all proceedings remain faithful to established legal processes and the rule of law.
Justice Omotosho had earlier convicted Kanu on all seven terrorism-related charges, sentencing him to life imprisonment on counts one, two, four, five, and six—choosing life terms instead of the death penalty.
He also imposed a 20-year jail term on count three and a five-year term on count seven, both without the option of a fine.
