The appeal filed this week reframes a case that has already travelled a long and contentious path through Nigeria’s courts. At its centre is a challenge not just to guilt, but to whether the trial that produced the verdict met basic legal thresholds.
The verdict didn’t end the argument
Nnamdi Kanu has lodged a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn his conviction and multiple sentences imposed by the Federal High Court in Abuja. He was found guilty on seven counts, including terrorism-related offences, and sentenced to five life terms alongside additional prison sentences.
In the appeal document dated February 4, 2026, Kanu formally contests both the conviction and the punishments handed down on November 20, 2025.
When procedure becomes the battleground
Central to Kanu’s appeal is the claim that the trial court failed to resolve foundational procedural issues before proceeding to judgment. He argues that a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the proceedings was neither heard nor determined, yet the court continued with the trial and delivered judgment.
The appeal contends that proceeding in the face of an unresolved objection amounted to a fundamental disruption of due process, undermining the legitimacy of the outcome.
A law that may no longer apply
Kanu also alleges that the trial court convicted and sentenced him under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013, despite its repeal by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 prior to judgment.
According to the appeal, sentencing under a repealed statute constitutes a grave error of law, one that the appellate court is being asked to correct by quashing the conviction in its entirety.
Twice tried for the same facts
Another pillar of the appeal is the claim of double jeopardy. Kanu argues that he was retried on facts previously nullified by the Court of Appeal, in violation of Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits being tried twice for the same offence.
He further alleges that his right to fair hearing was breached when judgment was delivered while his bail application and final written address remained pending.
Why this appeal matters beyond one man
The appeal tests the boundary between national security prosecutions and procedural justice. High-profile terrorism cases often move under intense public pressure, but appellate scrutiny focuses on whether courts followed the law as written, not the emotions surrounding the charges.
The questions raised go to the integrity of trial process itself, not public sentiment.
What the appellate court must now decide
If the Court of Appeal finds merit in the claims, the consequences could range from retrial orders to outright acquittal. If it does not, the convictions stand as final judicial affirmation. Either way, the ruling will shape how future high-stakes security trials are conducted — and how far procedural safeguards can be bent before they break.
This is IDNN. Independent. Digital. Uncompromising.
