Nnamdi Kanu’s Family Faults Court Verdict, Alleges Constitutional Breaches

The family of detained Indigenous People of Biafra leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has rejected the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, calling it legally flawed and inconsistent with constitutional safeguards.

In a statement issued on Monday and signed by Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu Kanu family, they said they were responding “with heavy hearts but firm clarity,” insisting that critical legal arguments presented in court were not reflected in the ruling.

They said they had drawn the court’s attention to Section 36(12) of the Constitution, previous Supreme Court pronouncements on repealed offences, and earlier directives linked to Kanu’s earlier trial. Citing the Constitution, the family argued that no person should be convicted for an offence not defined under a valid law at the time the act occurred.

Family questions legality of charges

The statement raised concerns about the court’s reliance on transition or savings clauses, arguing that such provisions could not apply because Kanu’s earlier charges were nullified by the Court of Appeal.

According to them, the appellate court’s decision “discharged and acquitted him,” effectively terminating the previous case. They maintained that the fresh charges before Justice Omotosho constituted “a new matter, starting afresh,” and therefore could not be revived or validated by any savings clause.

They further insisted that constitutional rights under Section 36, including the right to be tried only under existing laws and to be informed clearly of the charges, must remain paramount. “No clause can override the Constitution. No statute can supersede the Supreme Court,” the family added.

Full Story: Court Sentences Nnamdi Kanu to Life Imprisonment on Terrorism Charges

The Federal High Court in Abuja had sentenced Kanu to life imprisonment after convicting him on several counts of terrorism. The judge imposed life terms on counts one, two, four, five and six, while count three attracted a 20-year jail term, and count seven a five-year jail sentence, all without the option of fine.

The family urged strict adherence to constitutional provisions and established legal processes, saying all proceedings must “align with existing laws and procedures.”