The Indigenous People of Biafra has vowed to expose what it described as the “flaws and contradictions” in the Federal High Court ruling that sentenced its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment.
Emma Powerful, the group’s spokesperson, stated in a public release that Justice James Omotosho must clarify the legal basis for Kanu’s conviction.
“The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) wishes to inform the global community, diplomatic missions, international media, and lovers of freedom that we shall, in the coming days and weeks, lay bare the fundamental defects, contradictions, and illegalities that define the recent ruling issued by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja,” the statement read in part.
IPOB maintained that Kanu was not found with weapons or evidence of violent activity, asserting that his conviction was tied solely to his advocacy for self-determination.
“For the avoidance of doubt, no gun, no grenade, no GPMG, no explosive, and no attack plan was ever found on Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. None. No witness, civilian or military, ever testified before any court at any stage that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu committed any offence known to Nigerian or international law. This is an undeniable fact,” Powerful said.
The group argued that self-determination is a protected right under international law, citing Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). “Agitation is not terrorism, and requesting a referendum is not a weapon,” the statement added.
IPOB also criticized the government for escalating insecurity in the South-East while Kanu was held in solitary confinement, asserting that he could not have been involved in events during that time.
“It was Mazi Nnamdi Kanu who was attacked by the Nigerian military during Operation Python Dance. It was IPOB family members who were massacred at Nkpor, Aba, Onitsha, Emene, and other locations. Not one government officer or soldier has been held accountable for these atrocities. Yet the same system now seeks to convict the victim,” the group said.
Rejecting the court’s decision, IPOB questioned the judge’s interpretation of Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless it is defined in a written law.
“Justice Omotosho has demonstrated, sadly, that he either cannot interpret or refuses to interpret simple English contained in Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution… What written law did you rely on to purport to convict Mazi Nnamdi Kanu? Is that law extant, or has it been repealed?” the statement asked.
Powerful further argued that a court cannot convict someone under a repealed statute. “A judge cannot manufacture an offence from thin air. A court cannot resurrect a dead law. A repealed legislation cannot convict a living person,” she said.
The group said it plans to publicly scrutinize the judgment to highlight what it calls judicial malpractice. “This is no longer merely a Biafra issue. It is a human rights issue. It is a constitutional issue. It is an international law issue. And it is a test of whether Nigeria respects the rule of law or has descended into full judicial authoritarianism,” Powerful said.
She described Kanu as a “prisoner of conscience” and accused the Nigerian government of orchestrating political persecution. “We reaffirm our commitment to peaceful advocacy, international law, and the pursuit of a United Nations–supervised referendum. IPOB will continue to engage global institutions to ensure that this latest judicial absurdity attracts the condemnation it deserves,” she added.
