Nnamdi Kanu Appeal: Lawyer Says Conviction Cannot Survive Legal Scrutiny

A lawyer with the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has alleged that the Nigerian government is reluctant to have Nnamdi Kanu’s appeal listed for hearing because, in his view, the conviction cannot withstand legal scrutiny.

Kanu, the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, is challenging his conviction and life sentence before the Court of Appeal in Abuja. He filed his notice of appeal in February 2026, asking the appellate court to quash the conviction and discharge and acquit him.

The appeal followed the Federal High Court’s November 20, 2025 judgment in which Justice James Omotosho convicted Kanu on seven terrorism-related counts and sentenced him to life imprisonment, alongside other prison terms. Kanu’s grounds of appeal include claims that he was convicted under a repealed law and that several procedural and constitutional safeguards were breached.

Kanu has since asked the Court of Appeal to urgently list his pending applications and substantive appeal. Reports indicate that the Record of Appeal was transmitted on March 9, 2026, while his Appellant’s Brief was filed and served on June 5.

Speaking on the issue, Ifedi argued that the continued non-listing should not be treated simply as a case of judicial congestion or delay. He claimed that the Federal Government had not filed its brief within the applicable period and alleged that the prosecution was unwilling to defend the conviction before the appellate court.

“The question is no longer whether Nigeria will defend the conviction of Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. The question is why Nigeria has decided it cannot afford to,” Ifedi said.

He further alleged that the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, the Federal High Court and the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, had each played roles that created legal problems for the conviction.

On the Court of Appeal, Ifedi questioned its handling of an earlier 2022 judgment involving Kanu, arguing that the court’s subsequent actions created a conflict that should now be examined through the appeal.

He also challenged the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision that set aside the Court of Appeal’s earlier discharge and acquittal on eight counts and remitted the case to the Federal High Court for continuation of trial.

Ifedi argued that the Supreme Court could not lawfully revive charges that had previously been quashed, describing the development as one of the central issues that Kanu’s appeal would raise.

He also faulted the Federal High Court’s reliance on the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, arguing that the law had been repealed before Kanu’s conviction and that the transitional provisions of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 should have been applied.

The issue is also part of Kanu’s own grounds of appeal. In his February filing, he argued that the trial court erred by convicting and sentencing him under the 2013 law despite its repeal before judgment.

Ifedi said Kanu’s appeal contains eight issues for determination and argued that the questions raised would require the appellate court to examine the legal foundation of the conviction.

He also pointed to Kanu’s decision to represent himself in the appeal, saying this would prevent what he alleged were pressures that could otherwise be placed on legal representatives.

Meanwhile, IPOB has separately demanded that Kanu’s appeal be listed for hearing. The group issued a 14-day ultimatum in September and threatened to mobilise for a boycott of the 2027 elections in the South-East and other areas it identifies as Biafra territory if its demand is not met.

The allegations made by Ifedi remain arguments advanced by Kanu’s legal camp and have not been established as judicial findings. The substantive appeal will ultimately provide the Court of Appeal with the opportunity to determine the legal validity of the conviction and the grounds raised by Kanu.