‘Show me the law’ – Appeal Court must answer question Nnamdi Kanu asked judge – Prince Emmanuel
As hearing in the appeal filed by Nnamdi Kanu commences, the Court of Appeal will have to provide an answer to the Indigenous People of Biafra leader’s demand that he should be shown the law upon which he was tried and convicted, Kanu’s brother, Prince Emmanuel, has said.
Kanu had, in the course of his trial on terrorism charges by the Abuja Federal High Court, asked the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho, ‘to show him the law’.
As a result, the statement – “Show me the law”, became a popular slogan among IPOB members and observers of the protracted trial.
In a statement released on Tuesday, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, the younger brother of the IPOB leader, said the appellate court will have to answer the controversial question.
The statement noted that the Abuja Federal High Court judgment can’t stand if the Court of Appeal does not identify a complete written law that authorised the conviction.
“On 20 November 2025, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu stood in court and asked the most dangerous question any accused person can ask a judge: “Show me the law.”
“He demanded the extant written law in force on that day that defined the offence and prescribed the punishment in line with what Section 36(12) of the Constitution of Nigeria demands.
“Justice Omotosho did not produce the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022, which was the extant written law in force on 20 November 2025. Instead, he relied on a savings clause — Section 98(3) of the same TPPA — to go back to the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) (TPAA) Act 2013, the very law the Constitution, Egigia, and other authorities said no court should attempt to use, which Justice Omotosho acknowledged had been repealed, and which he sought to sustain through Section 98(3).
“The charges against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu were brought under the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013.
“The Court of Appeal must now answer the single question Justice Omotosho refused to answer. It must identify the written law in force on the conviction date — 20 November 2025.
“If the Federal Government or the Court of Appeal judges cannot identify a complete written law that authorised the conviction, it is game over,” the statement said.
Faulting what it described as Nnamdi Kanu’s conviction on the basis of a repealed law, the statement noted that the trial judge, Justice Omotosho, accepted that TPAA 2013 had been repealed by Section 98(1) of the TPPA 2022, “yet he ultimately relied on Section 98(3) to sustain convictions that remained anchored to the repealed TPAA 2013”.
It insisted that Kanu should be freed based on provisions of Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which stipulated that a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty is prescribed in a written law.
The statement added, “Justice Omotosho never identified any offence-creating provision of the TPPA 2022 under which Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was charged, arraigned, tried, or convicted. Yet the convictions remained anchored to TPAA 2013.
“The question remains exactly as Mazi Nnamdi Kanu framed it: “Show me the law.”
“If no extant written law in force can be identified as the legal foundation of the conviction delivered on 20 November 2025, then Section 36(12) has already supplied the answer.”
