EXCLUSIVE: IPOB Questions Kanu’s Conviction After FG Files Cross-Appeal

The Indigenous People of Biafra has claimed that the Federal Government’s cross-appeal in the case involving its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has weakened the legal basis of his conviction and raised fundamental questions about the jurisdiction of the trial court.

The group made the remarks in a statement released on Sunday by its spokesperson, Emma Powerful.

Kanu was rearrested in Kenya in June 2021 and extradited to Nigeria to face trial on a multi-count terrorism charge.

On November 20, 2025, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja convicted him on terrorism-related counts, including inciting violence and managing a proscribed organisation.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment and subsequently remanded at the Sokoto Correctional Centre.

IPOB alleged that the Federal Government, through its cross-appeal, effectively acknowledged that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in aspects of the sentencing process, a development it said undermined the validity of the conviction.

According to the group, jurisdiction is the foundation of every criminal proceeding and cannot be separated into different stages of a trial.

“The implication is simple. Jurisdiction is not divisible. Jurisdiction is not a buffet. Jurisdiction is a continuum,” the statement said.

The group maintained that if a court is found to have acted without jurisdiction at the sentencing stage, the conviction itself cannot stand because both are legally interconnected.

IPOB further argued that the Court of Appeal would have to determine whether the conviction could be sustained in light of what it described as the Federal Government’s position on jurisdiction.

The group also alleged that the trial was affected by several procedural irregularities, including the use of repealed laws, denial of fair hearing, failure to disclose applicable statutes and the withholding of evidence.

According to IPOB, these alleged defects combined to render the conviction legally unsustainable.

“It would have to explain how a conviction can stand when the trial judge himself acknowledged that without a written law there can be no conviction,” the statement said.

The group warned that the outcome of the appeal could have wider implications for future criminal prosecutions, particularly on issues relating to jurisdiction, fair hearing and constitutional safeguards.

It called on members of the international community, legal practitioners, diplomats and human rights organisations to closely monitor the proceedings, insisting that the case had become a major test of adherence to established legal principles.