14 Days to Keep Him in Custody, Endless Silence to Hear Him: How Nigeria’s Court of Appeal Built a Cage — Then Locked the Courtroom Door

• A lawyer, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has challenged the legal basis of Nnamdi Kanu’s conviction, alleging reliance on a repealed law and calling on the Court of Appeal to list and hear his appeal.

A lawyer, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has challenged the legal basis of the conviction of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, while calling on the Court of Appeal to list and hear his appeal.

Ifedi made the demand in a press briefing issued on Wednesday, September 16, 2026, titled “Why Nigeria Will Never List the Appeal of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu — And the Bill of Indictment Against Every Court That Made This Fraud Possible.”

In the briefing, the lawyer alleged that the Federal Government failed to file its brief within the stipulated period and argued that the continued failure to list Kanu’s appeal raised questions about the judicial process surrounding his conviction.

Ifedi identified what he described as three major issues: the alleged failure of the Federal Government to file its brief, the refusal of the Court of Appeal to list the appeal and the trial court’s alleged reliance on a repealed terrorism law in convicting Kanu.

Lawyer Questions Court of Appeal’s Handling of Case

According to Ifedi, the Court of Appeal had previously discharged Kanu before subsequently issuing what he described as a civil stay that effectively kept him in custody.

He argued that a civil stay could not lawfully override a criminal discharge, describing the development as an abuse of judicial process.

Ifedi further alleged that the same court had failed to list the appeal arising from Kanu’s subsequent conviction.

He questioned why, according to him, a panel could be constituted within 14 days in circumstances that resulted in Kanu remaining in custody, while his appeal had yet to be listed for hearing.

Supreme Court’s Role Questioned

The lawyer also challenged the treatment of charges that he said had previously been quashed by the Supreme Court.

Ifedi alleged that the Supreme Court revived the quashed counts and sent them back for trial without the necessary jurisdiction.

He argued that the subsequent proceedings were affected by what he described as the Supreme Court’s earlier decision to revive the charges.

The claims form part of Ifedi’s legal argument and were not presented in the briefing as findings by a court in a new judgment.

Lawyer Alleges Conviction Was Based on Repealed Law

A significant part of the briefing focused on the law under which Kanu was convicted.

Ifedi argued that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 had been repealed by the time Justice James Omotosho delivered the judgment against Kanu.

He contended that the applicable legislation was the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 and argued that its transitional provisions provided the mechanism for continuing proceedings affected by the change in legislation.

The lawyer also referred to the Supreme Court decision in State v. Egigia (2024) LPELR-62009(SC), which he said established that a repealed law no longer had legal effect.

According to Ifedi, Justice Omotosho had acknowledged the principle that there could be “no written law, no conviction” but nevertheless convicted Kanu under what Ifedi described as a repealed statute.

He therefore argued that the conviction lacked a valid legal foundation.

Claim Over Federal Government’s Appeal Brief

Ifedi further alleged that the Attorney-General of the Federation failed to file a brief in response to Kanu’s appeal before the applicable deadline expired.

He described the alleged failure as evidence that the Federal Government was unable to defend the conviction.

The lawyer argued that the development should prompt the Court of Appeal to hear the appeal rather than leave the matter unresolved.

Kanu’s Self-Representation Highlighted

The briefing also focused on Kanu’s decision to represent himself in the appeal.

Ifedi said Kanu had prepared what he described as a 115-page handwritten appellant brief containing eight issues for determination.

He argued that the document raised questions concerning the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s previous decisions and the transitional provisions of the 2022 terrorism legislation.

According to Ifedi, the issues raised in the brief should be subjected to judicial determination rather than left unresolved.

Appeal Could Reach Supreme Court

Ifedi said the case could eventually return to the Supreme Court if the Court of Appeal upholds Kanu’s conviction.

He argued that such a development could require the apex court to determine whether a conviction could stand where the trial court allegedly relied on a repealed statute.

The lawyer maintained that the judiciary should resolve the issues through the normal appellate process.

Call for International Attention

Ifedi also called on the international community to question Nigerian authorities over the status of Kanu’s appeal.

He specifically urged international observers to seek explanations regarding why the appeal had not been listed, why the Federal Government allegedly failed to file its brief and what law governed the conviction delivered on November 20, 2025.

He concluded by reiterating his position that Kanu’s conviction was legally void and called on the Court of Appeal to list the appeal for hearing.

The briefing was issued by Onyedikachi Ifedi on September 16, 2026, under the hashtags #FreeMaziNnamdiKanu and #FreeMaziNnamdiKanuNow.