Kanu’s brother wants Appeal Court to answer question Justice Omotosho couldn’t during trial

From Okey Sampson, Umuahia

Prince Emmanuel Kanu, brother of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has said in dealing with the appeal filled by his brother and the cross appeal of the Federal Government, the Court of Appeal was obligated to answer the question Justice James Omotosho refused to answer during the trial of the case.

Emmanuel, in a statement, said on  November 20, 2025, before his conviction, Kanu demanded Justice Omotosho to “Show me the written law in force that authorises this conviction.”

He said Omotosho did not produce the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, which was the extant written law in force on November 20, 2025.

“On November 20, 2025, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu stood in court and asked the most dangerous question any accused person can ask a judge: “Show me the law.”

Emmanuel added, “He demanded the extant written law in force on that day that defined the offence and prescribed the punishment in line with what Section 36(12) of the Constitution of Nigeria demands.

“Omotosho did not produce the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, which was the extant written law in force on November 20, 2025.

“Instead, he relied on a savings clause —Section 98(3) of the same TPPA — to go back to the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, the very law the Constitution, Egigia, and other authorities said no court should attempt to use, which Omotosho acknowledged had been repealed, and which he sought to sustain through Section 98(3).

“Omotosho accepted that TPAA 2013 was repealed. Omotosho accepted that Section 98(3) was needed to preserve pending proceedings. Omotosho accepted that there was a “smooth transition” after repeal, but never made that transition commanded by Section 97 of the extant, written and governing TPPA.

“Omotosho never identified any offence-creating provision of the TPPA 2022 under which Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was charged, arraigned, tried, or convicted. Yet the convictions remained anchored to TPAA 2013”.

Emmanuel was of the view that the Court of Appeal should now answer the single question Justice Omotosho refused to answer, stressing that it must identify the written law in force on the conviction date or allow his brother to go home.