The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has rejected Thursday’s judgment of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which sentenced its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment on seven terrorism-related counts.
In a statement issued on Friday by its spokesperson, Emma Powerful, IPOB maintained that Kanu “committed no offence known to Nigerian law,” insisting that his activities amounted to legitimate self-determination protected under international human-rights conventions.
Powerful accused Justice James Omotosho of delivering an unconstitutional verdict, alleging that the judge ignored Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibits conviction for an offence not defined in a written law.
The statement read, “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 account, at any stage, that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu committed any offence known to Nigerian or international law.”
IPOB argued that the only issue the government continues to criminalise is self-determination, which it said is guaranteed under several international treaties, including, Article 20 of the African Charter and Article 1 of both the ICCPR and ICESCR.
He further stated, “Self-determination is a protected right, not a crime. Agitation is not terrorism, and requesting a referendum is not a weapon.”
The group also stated that insecurity in the South-East worsened while Kanu was held in DSS custody, arguing that the government cannot attribute incidents recorded during that period to him.
It accused Nigerian security forces of past killings of IPOB members:
Powerful said, “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.”
Describing the ruling as “unconstitutional,” IPOB said Justice Omotosho relied on “repealed provisions” to convict Kanu.
He said, “Our question to Justice Omotosho is simple: What written law did you rely on to purport to convict Mazi Nnamdi Kanu? Is that law extant, or has it been repealed?
“If the law has been repealed, can it qualify as a written law under Section 36(12)? Why did you ignore binding Court of Appeal and Supreme Court authorities?”
According to the group, a comprehensive response outlining “defects, contradictions, and illegalities” in the ruling will be released in the coming days. It said it will continue to engage international organisations on what it called judicial and human-rights violations.
IPOB reiterated its demand for a United Nations, supervised referendum on Biafra.
Sources recall that Justice Omotosho had ruled that Kanu’s Radio Biafra broadcasts and directives enforcing sit-at-home orders amounted to acts of terrorism, adding that attacks carried out by members of the Eastern Security Network formed part of the prosecution’s evidence.
The judgment was delivered in Kanu’s absence after he was removed from the courtroom for unruly conduct.
The Federal Government has maintained that Kanu’s activities pose a threat to national security, while his legal team has vowed to appeal the judgment.
