![Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB.[PHOTO CREDIT: Ripples Nigeria]](https://crediblenewsng.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Nnamdi-Kanu-.jpg)
The family of the detained leader of IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu has strongly rejected the latest judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja, describing it as legally flawed and inconsistent with constitutional safeguards.
Their position was contained in a statement issued on Monday by Emmanuel Kanu, on behalf of the Okwu Kanu family, who said they were responding “with heavy hearts but absolute clarity.”
According to the family, several fundamental legal points brought before the court were not adequately addressed in the ruling delivered by Justice James Omotosho.
They said their submissions included references to Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which stipulates that no person can be convicted for an offence not defined in an existing written law at the time of the alleged act.
They also pointed to Supreme Court precedents concerning the validity of repealed laws and earlier judicial directives issued in the long-running case.
The family argued that the judgment relied heavily on a transition or savings clause intended to preserve certain legal actions when laws are amended or repealed.
However, they insisted that such a clause was inapplicable in Kanu’s situation because his previous case had already been concluded.
They recalled that the Court of Appeal had discharged and acquitted Kanu, effectively terminating all charges and bringing the earlier proceedings to an end.
ALSO READ: Kanu gets life imprisonment for terrorism
By this logic, they said, the fresh charges brought before Justice Omotosho constituted a new matter that should have been treated as starting afresh (“commencing de novo”), and therefore could not be “saved” or sustained by any transition clause.
They warned that allowing such reasoning would undermine citizens’ rights and judicial safeguards.
Emphasising the centrality of constitutional protections, the family argued that Section 36 guarantees every accused person the right to be tried only under laws in force, to be clearly informed of charges, and not to be convicted under repealed or invalid laws.
They stressed that these rights cannot be set aside by statutory provisions, procedural clauses, or judicial discretion.
The family’s statement further cautioned that the hierarchy of legal authority must remain intact. “No transition clause can override Section 36. No statute can override the Constitution.
No judge can override the Supreme Court,” they stated, adding that any judgment conflicting with established constitutional principles raises serious concerns about due process.
They concluded by calling for strict adherence to the Constitution and proper judicial procedures, insisting that all future proceedings must align with valid laws and the rulings of higher courts.
Punch
