According to IPOB, the Nigerian government has acknowledged that Justice James Omotosho of the Abuja Federal High Court did not have the authority to convict and sentence Nnamdi Kanu to life in jail.
IPOB spokesman Emma Powerful made the assertion in a statement announcing the start of procedures in Kanu’s appeal to dispute his conviction.
On Friday, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division received the case’s brief of argument. Reportedly, in reaction to Kanu’s appeal brief, the Nigerian government has also filed their cross-appeal.
On November 20, 2025, Justice Omotosho handed down a verdict convicting Kanu of terrorism, which had been brought against him by the Nigerian government. The Sokoto jail is where Kanu is presently serving his life term.
According to IPOB’s post-session statement, the Nigerian government acknowledged in its cross-appeal to Kanu’s appeal that Justice Omotosho’s Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence Kanu.
A problem much larger than Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s fate has been sparked by the ruling handed down by Justice James Omotosho on 20 November 2025. The credibility of the institution is in shambles as a result.
The fact that the US government has just provided one of the most damning pieces of evidence challenging the verdict is what really sets this case apart.
James Omotosho J. “acted without jurisdiction” when he handed down a life sentence instead of the death penalty, as the Respondent (Federal Republic of Nigeria) acknowledged in its Cross-Appeal, as stated in Friday’s Brief of Argument.
While trying to defend itself, the federal government has essentially shot a cannon through the middle of the judgement.
Regardless of what happens throughout the proceedings, a court can only have jurisdiction over a certain matter. For many years, the principle has been the basis of Nigerian law.
“If the trial court did not have the authority to inflict the sentence, as the federal government is now claiming, then it was also not within the trial court’s authority to obtain the conviction that allegedly led to the punishment. Jurisdiction does not distinguish between a conviction and a sentence. According to IPOB, one cannot exist independently of the other.
According to IPOB, the Nigerian judiciary is in jeopardy since the federal government has unwittingly become a witness against its own judgement.
A whole new species of criminal law, unheard of in Nigeria, the Commonwealth, and the common-law world, would have to be invented if the Court of Appeal tried to uphold the conviction while also acknowledging the federal government’s admission about jurisdiction, it said.
“It would amount to the court stating that a trial court can legitimately convict even when it lacks jurisdiction.”
The separatist organization said that the Nigerian government found itself in a bind after attempting to blackmail Kanu into abandoning Biafra restoration through the threat of capital punishment. They “stuck themselves in the foot,” IPOB remarked.
Kanu and his legal team had argued that Justice Omotosho’s decision was incorrect because it rested on a statute that has since been abolished.
The group has stated that the Nigerian judiciary is now on trial, as the appeal has begun.
Our leader and prophet submitted the long-awaited appeal following Omotosho’s conviction judgement today, according to the statement. There is more at stake than just one individual in the Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu case that is now pending before the Court of Appeal.
Now the question is whether the Nigerian court system is willing to openly reject its own guiding principles or maintain its status as a legal institution. Starting today, the entire Nigerian judiciary, from the highest court to the lowest court, is essentially on trial before the entire globe.
The IPOB claims that the appeal’s impact extends much beyond the two main players in the case, Nnamdi Kanu and the Nigerian government.
That Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu should be found guilty is no longer the sole matter before the Court of Appeal, the statement continued. The outcome will determine the continued validity of long-standing principles of criminal law in Nigeria.
Since the trial judge admitted that a written statute is necessary for a conviction, it would be necessary to explain how a conviction might remain in place. At the time of this writing (20 November 2025), TPAA was not a statute in Nigeria.
“The Nigerian judiciary is currently at a critical juncture. There is a way to keep constitutional government intact. On the other hand, you can follow the principles that Nigerian courts have upheld for decades.
The federal government has effectively told the court that the lower court did not have the authority to hear the case. At this point, it’s impossible to avoid asking: What remains for affirmation if the trial court did not have jurisdiction?
In a statement, IPOB urged all constitutionalists, both in Nigeria and around the world, to keep a careful eye on the appeal.