The family of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has rejected the recent judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
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 absolute clarity,” insisting that the ruling failed to address several fundamental legal issues raised during the proceedings.
According to the family, they had drawn the court’s attention to critical constitutional provisions, including Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution, Supreme Court precedents on repealed laws, and earlier directives relating to previous charges against Kanu. They reiterated that the Constitution unequivocally states that no individual can be convicted unless the offence is defined in an existing written law at the time the alleged act was committed, adding that multiple Supreme Court judgments affirm this safeguard.
The family expressed deep concern over the court’s reliance on a transition or savings clause, arguing that such provisions do not apply to this case. They maintained that the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision, which discharged and acquitted Kanu, effectively terminated all pending charges. Therefore, the fresh charges brought before Justice Omotosho amounted to a new case filed de novo, which, they argued, cannot be sustained through any savings clause.
They further stressed that constitutional rights under Section 36—such as the right to be tried only under valid laws, to know the exact charges, and not to be prosecuted under repealed statutes—cannot be overridden under any circumstances.
