Nnamdi Kanu victim of judicial ambush, denied fair hearing – Family

The family of leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, has issued an official statement rejecting his conviction by an Abuja Federal High Court.

Kanu was on September 20, 2025, convicted on terrorism charges and sentenced to life imprisonment by the court presided by Justice James Omotosho. He is currently serving the prison term at Sokoto Correctional Centre.

The Okwu Kanu family, in a statement released on Monday by Prince Emmanuel Kanu, described the judgment as a judicial ambush, a complete denial of fair hearing and an affront to the Constitution.

Parts of the statement read, “The Kanu Family issues this statement today with heavy hearts but absolute clarity. What happened in the courtroom of Justice James Omotosho was not justice — it was an ambush. After months of legal arguments, after submissions citing Section 36(12) of the Constitution, Supreme Court authorities stating plainly that a repealed law is dead, and the binding decision of the Supreme Court directing correction of Count 7, Justice Omotosho ignored every one of these constitutional and judicial commands and convicted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on repealed and non-existent laws.”

The family condemned the conviction, describing it as unprecedented and unconstitutional. It stressed that the judgment was a direct violation of the right to fair hearing.

The statement added, “The judge cannot ambush an accused after hearing has closed. Once parties conclude arguments, the judge cannot, on judgment day, introduce a new legal theory, new statutes, or new grounds of conviction. Doing so without informing the accused or giving him a chance to be heard is the very definition of denial of fair hearing.

“What Justice Omotosho did was exactly that. He invoked a transition/savings clause — a clause that nobody argued, nobody raised, and nobody addressed — and used it to overturn the Constitution itself. This is ambush jurisprudence. This is not law.”

Stressing that the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that a repealed law is dead, the statement noted that the Section 36(12) of the Constitution is clear that no person shall be convicted unless the offence is defined in a written law in force at the time.

“The Supreme Court has repeated the same principle in case after case. A repealed statute is dead. A repealed statute cannot create an offence.
A repealed statute cannot sustain a conviction. No judge, regardless of personal views, can resurrect a dead law. Justice Omotosho acknowledged these authorities — then violated them. He did not only contradict the Constitution. He contradicted the Supreme Court. He contradicted binding precedent. He contradicted his own oath of office.”

The statement argued that the judge’s attempt to evade the constitutional bar on repealed laws by invoking a savings clause was legally impossible as the savings clause applies only to matters pending at the time of repeal.

“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s matter was not pending. The Court of Appeal discharged and acquitted him. That decision terminated all charges.
When the Federal Government filed fresh charges before Justice Omotosho, it was a new case, commencing de novo. A case that was terminated cannot be “saved” by a transition clause.
The law cannot save what no longer existed.

“Justice Omotosho therefore applied the savings clause to a non-existent proceeding, which is a legal impossibility,” it further argued.

The statement further held that the right to be tried only under laws in force, be informed of the exact charge, and not be convicted under a repealed or non-existent law, are part of the non-derogable right to fair hearing, as stipulated by Section 36 of the Constitution.

“No transition clause can override Section 36. No statute can override the Constitution. No judge can override the Supreme Court. Yet this judgment did all three. If Justice Omotosho’s position is accepted, then a judge can convict on a repealed law; a judge can revive a dead law, a judge can contradict the Constitution by judicial improvisation,
and worst of all — a non-derogable right can be derogated from. Such a proposition is legally absurd and constitutionally dangerous.”

Insisting that the judgment cannot stand, the family declared, “We state without fear and without apology – Justice Omotosho’s judgment is unlawful, unconstitutional, and void. It was achieved through ambush, through reliance on laws that no longer exist,
through disobedience to the Supreme Court, through denial of fair hearing, and
through a fabricated legal theory never presented in open court. Nothing done under such conditions can stand in law.
Nothing done in violation of a citizen’s fundamental rights can endure.

“We therefore demand immediate nullification of the unconstitutional conviction. An end to this judicial improvisation that treats constitutional rights as optional suggestions. Nigeria is a constitutional republic. Its judges must act like it.”