Nnamdi Kanu files 22 grounds of appeal, seeks to quash his conviction

MaTaZ ArIsInG
Dallas, Texas

The convicted leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has lodged a 22-ground of appeal to quash the November 20, 2025, judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Kanu, who was convicted on a seven-count terrorism charge the Federal Government preferred against him, in the notice of appeal he personally signed, insisted that the trial judge, James Omotosho, erred in law and occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice against him.

In his first ground of appeal, Kanu maintained that the trial judge erred in law “by failing to resolve the procedural and competence consequences of the foundational disruption of the original trial
process in September 2017 (Operation Python Dance II), thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.”

Giving the particulars of the error, Kanu told the appellate court that in September 2017, his residence at Afara-Ukwu was invaded during ‘Operation Python Dance II’ by Nigerian State agents.

“The said operation resulted in deaths and destruction and triggered disruption of the earlier proceedings.

“The Appellant’s case thereafter proceeded in a manner that required the trial court to first determine the legal effect of that foundational disruption on competence.

“The trial court proceeded to take evidence and deliver judgment without first resolving the foundational competence implications arising from the said State action.

“The judgment of conviction was delivered on 20 November 2025 notwithstanding the unresolved foundational competence issues,” he added.

Kanu told the appellate court that Justice Omotosho equally erred in law “by failing, refusing or neglecting to hear and determine the Appellant’s pending Preliminary Objection challenging the competence of the proceedings before proceeding to trial and judgment.”

He contended that his objection which was supported by affidavit evidence, challenged the competence of the proceedings on threshold jurisdictional grounds.

“The Learned Trial Judge did not hear or determine the objection. The court proceeded with evidence and delivered judgment on 20 November 2025 while the objection remained pending and undetermined.”

In one of the grounds, Kanu argued that the trial judge proceeded to judgement and convicted him when his pending bail application remained undetermined, “thereby affecting the fairness of the process.”

Besides, the embattled IPOB leader contended that the trial judge erred in law by imposing sentence without taking the Appellant’s allocutus and by imposing excessive and/or unlawful sentences
without considering relevant mitigation factors.

According to him, “Upon conviction, the Appellant was not afforded the opportunity to address the court in mitigation (allocutus).

“Sentence was imposed without allocutus. The court did not consider relevant mitigation or sentencing factors.”

Aside from praying the Court of Appeal to quash his conviction on all the counts in the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, Kanu applied for an order setting aside the sentences/punishment imposed on him by the High Court.

He equally prayed for, “An Order of the Honourable Court of Appeal discharging and acquitting the Appellant in respect of all the counts in charge No.FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015.”

Meanwhile, Kanu told the appellant court that he would want to be present on the hearing of the appeal, saying he “may be conducting the appeal in person.”

“I desire to put my case and argument into writing and also adopt my argument orally in the court on the hearing of the appeal,” he added.

1SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER NOW

Support MATAZ ARISING’ journalism of integrity and credibility.

Good journalism ensure the possibility of a good society, an accountable democracy, and a transparent government.

We ask you to consider making a modest support to this noble endeavour.

0.00USD

Amount
0.00

TEXT AD: To advertise here – Email ad@matazarising.com

LATEST POSTS