“Court of Appeal Set to Review Kanu’s Conviction Amid Claims of Systemic Judicial Failures”

 Nnamdi Kanu Files Appeal Against Terrorism Conviction, Raises Due

Process and Evidence Concerns

By Njoku Jude Njoku, Esq.

On 4 February 2026, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu filed a Notice of Appeal at the

Court of Appeal, Abuja, challenging his terrorism conviction and life

sentences imposed by the Federal High Court on 20 November 2025.

Kanu was convicted on seven terrorism-related counts, including alleged

broadcasts, incitement, bomb-making directives, and unlawful importation

of a radio transmitter. Most counts attracted life imprisonment, with

all sentences ordered to run concurrently.

The appeal, however, is not a routine post-conviction filing.

A Compressed but Far-Reaching Legal Challenge

Although the Notice of Appeal contains 22 grounds, the defence describes

it as a highly compressed legal challenge. According to the defence

team, the grounds represent the distilled outcome of an extensive review

that initially identified over 1,000 procedural and legal defects,

refined into 101 core infractions, and ultimately streamlined to 22

issues to comply with appellate rules and avoid prolixity.

The strategy, they say, is to present the Court of Appeal with a clear

picture of cumulative systemic failure, rather than overwhelm it with

volume.

Central Issues Raised in the Appeal

The grounds of appeal highlight several recurring themes.

Forced Disruption and the “Flight” Narrative

The appeal challenges the trial court’s failure to address the legal

consequences of the 2017 military invasion of Kanu’s home (Operation

Python Dance II), which resulted in deaths and destruction. The defence

argues that Kanu’s subsequent absence from Nigeria was a compelled

response to state violence, yet it was portrayed as voluntary

“flight” and used to draw adverse inferences during trial.

Denial of Fair Hearing

Multiple grounds allege breaches of Section 36 of the Constitution,

including failure to hear a pending preliminary objection, leaving a

bail application undecided, and delivering judgment without allowing the

defence to file a final written address.

Conviction Without Proof

A core feature of the appeal is evidential failure. The defence argues

that:

No victim testified to intimidation, violence, or harm.

No witness confirmed hearing or being influenced by alleged broadcasts.

No bomb was produced, no act of manufacture was proved, and no causal

link was established.

The defence characterises the outcome as conviction without proof beyond

reasonable doubt.

Reliance on Unpleaded and Unproved Facts

The appeal also alleges that the trial court relied on facts not pleaded

in the charge sheet and not proved in evidence, including references to

alleged attacks on United States and United Kingdom diplomatic missions.

The defence argues that criminal convictions must rest strictly on

pleaded and proved facts, not extraneous narratives.

Statutory Defects and Sentencing Irregularities

The appeal challenges convictions entered under a terrorism statute that

had been repealed before judgment, despite settled authority that courts

cannot convict under a non-existent law. In addition, Count 7

(importation of a radio transmitter) is challenged as being

statute-barred, founded on a penal statute with a limited maximum

sentence which, according to the defence, Kanu has already exceeded in

custody. The defence argues that conviction and sentencing on that count

were therefore unlawful.

What Happens Next

The Court of Appeal is expected to receive the Record of Appeal before

fixing hearing dates. The case now places renewed scrutiny on due

process, evidentiary standards, statutory compliance, and judicial

accountability in Nigeria, especially around politically motivated

"terrorism" prosecutions.