Kanu’s Lawyer Raises Concerns Over Appeal

Onyedikachi Ifedi, the lawyer representing the jailed leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has raised concerns over the delay in the hearing of his client’s appeal against his conviction.

Ifedi, in a statement dated 10th September, 2026, alleged that the Court of Appeal had not listed the appeal for hearing despite legal issues raised by Kanu’s defence.

He also alleged that the federal government had not filed its response to the appeal within the stipulated period.

According to the lawyer, the issues raised in the appeal concern the legal basis of Kanu’s conviction, the handling of earlier proceedings and the application of terrorism legislation to the case.

“The federal government filed nothing. Time expired. No brief. No living section. No defence,” Ifedi stated.

He said the Court of Appeal should list the matter and allow the parties to present their arguments.

Ifedi also questioned the court’s handling of Kanu’s earlier custody proceedings, particularly the relationship between an earlier discharge and subsequent orders affecting his detention.

He argued that the legal processes involved should be clearly determined by the appellate court.

The lawyer further raised questions concerning the Supreme Court’s treatment of some counts in Kanu’s case, which, according to him, had previously been quashed.

He contended that the court lacked jurisdiction to revive the counts and return them for further proceedings.

Ifedi also challenged the legal basis of the conviction entered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja on 20 November 2025.

He alleged that the trial court relied on the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which he said had been repealed before the judgment.

According to him, the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 was the applicable legislation and contained transitional provisions governing proceedings that had been commenced under the earlier law.

“By the time the case reached Justice Omotosho, the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 had been repealed,” he said.

Ifedi argued that the transitional provisions of the 2022 law should have been applied to the proceedings.

He also cited the Supreme Court decision in State v. Egigia (2024) LPELR-62009(SC) in support of his argument on the application of written law to criminal convictions.

The lawyer maintained that the issue of which legislation governed the proceedings should be determined by the appellate court.

He also alleged that the Attorney-General of the Federation had not filed a brief in response to the appeal before the deadline expired.

“The chief law officer of the Federation had one job: defend the conviction or concede it. He did neither. He let time expire,” Ifedi alleged.

The lawyer further said Kanu had chosen to represent himself in the appeal and had prepared a 115-page handwritten appellant’s brief containing eight issues for determination.

According to him, the issues raised in the brief include questions concerning the applicable terrorism legislation, the Constitution and previous judicial decisions.

Ifedi called for the appeal to be listed and heard, saying the legal questions raised by Kanu’s defence should be determined through the judicial process.

He also called on the relevant authorities to clarify the status of the appeal and the legal provisions under which Kanu was convicted.

The lawyer said, “Why has the Court of Appeal refused to list the appeal?”

He also questioned why the Federal Government had not filed its response within the stipulated period and what legislation governed the 20 November 2025 conviction.

Ifedi urged the Court of Appeal to hear the matter and determine the issues raised by Kanu’s defence.