Kanu Family Fires Back: ‘No Statutory Transition Means No Valid Sentence’

• The Okwu-Kanu Family has called for the immediate hearing of Nnamdi Kanu’s appeal, questioning the written law underpinning his conviction and urging the NJC to examine Justice Omotosho’s conduct.

The Okwu-Kanu Family has called for the immediate hearing of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s appeal while questioning the legal basis of the conviction and sentence handed down by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The family, in a statement issued on September 27, 2026, also called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to examine the conduct of Justice Omotosho during Kanu’s trial.

The statement, signed by Prince Emmanuel Kanu on behalf of the Okwu-Kanu Family, was titled “Omotosho — Show Us the Law” and focused extensively on the constitutional and statutory basis of Kanu’s November 20, 2025 conviction.

The family alleged that Justice Omotosho had stated in open court on November 4, 2025, that “no written law, no conviction,” before subsequently convicting Kanu 16 days later.

The family argued that the conviction was based on terrorism legislation that had been repealed, particularly the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 as amended in 2013.

According to the statement, the legislation was repealed following the enactment of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, which contains provisions dealing with proceedings commenced under the earlier legislation.

The family specifically cited Sections 97 and 98 of the 2022 Act, arguing that the provisions required the proceedings to transition to the applicable provisions of the newer legislation.

The statement alleged that Justice Omotosho instead relied on Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act to allow the proceedings to continue, without what the family described as a statutory transition to corresponding provisions of the 2022 law.

The family also challenged the legal foundation of Count Seven, arguing that proceedings involving the Customs and Excise Management Act were similarly affected by subsequent legislation.

The family cited Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution, which provides that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and its penalty prescribed in written law. The constitutional provision indeed states that requirement.

It therefore asked the appellate court to identify the specific written law that defined each offence and prescribed the applicable penalties on November 20, 2025.

The family further alleged that Justice Omotosho had cited authorities including State v. Egigia and IGP v. Ogundimu concerning the legal effect of repealed legislation, but nevertheless proceeded with the conviction.

The legal argument remains contested. In his November 20, 2025 judgment, Justice Omotosho rejected Kanu’s objection that the repeal of the earlier terrorism legislation invalidated the trial. Reports of the judgment state that the judge held that the offences were allegedly committed while the 2013 legislation was in force and that Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act preserved pending proceedings.

Justice Omotosho subsequently convicted Kanu on all seven counts and sentenced him to life imprisonment on several counts, with additional terms of 20 years and five years on other counts. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The family also raised concerns over Kanu’s right to fair hearing, alleging that he was not permitted to make a final address before judgment and was not afforded the required sentencing procedure, including allocutus.

However, contemporary reports from the proceedings record that Kanu had declined to open his defence after being given an opportunity to do so. Justice Omotosho said at the time that Kanu could not claim to have been denied fair hearing after failing to utilise the opportunity provided to him.

The family further questioned the constitutional implications of the earlier Court of Appeal decision concerning Kanu’s case and the subsequent Supreme Court ruling which allowed the proceedings to continue.

It argued that the word “continuation” could not, by itself, determine the legal character of the proceedings and demanded that the relevant court orders and constitutional provisions be examined.

Kanu has since appealed his conviction and sentence. In February 2026, Premium Times reported that his notice of appeal asked the Court of Appeal to quash, reverse and set aside the conviction and punishment imposed by the Federal High Court.

The Okwu-Kanu Family is now asking the appellate court to determine what written law authorised the conviction and whether the statutory transition from the repealed legislation was properly effected.

The family posed five principal questions, including what written law defined the offences and prescribed their penalties on the date of conviction; where the statutory transition under the 2022 terrorism legislation occurred; whether the court properly addressed the repeal of the earlier legislation; whether Kanu received the constitutionally required fair-hearing process; and what legal effect the earlier Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions had on the proceedings.

The family also called for the appeal to be listed and determined, urging the judiciary to address the constitutional and jurisdictional questions raised in the case.

It further called on the National Judicial Council to examine Justice Omotosho’s conduct on the record, alleging that the judge had stated the governing constitutional principle concerning written law but later convicted Kanu under legislation the family maintains had been repealed.

The family concluded its statement with the question: “Where is the written law?”

It also reiterated its central demand: “No written law, no conviction.”