The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has challenged Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja to publicly clarify the legal foundation on which he convicted its detained leader, Nnamdi Kanu, on terrorism charges.
Justice Omotosho on Thursday found Kanu guilty of terrorism-related offences and handed him a life sentence, a ruling that has triggered strong reactions from IPOB and its supporters.
In a statement on Friday, IPOB’s spokesperson, Emma Powerful, insisted that the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013—used as the basis for the charges—was no longer in force, having been replaced by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022. The group argued that convicting Kanu under a repealed law violates Nigeria’s Constitution and established judicial precedents.
IPOB vowed to expose what it described as “fundamental defects, contradictions, and illegalities” in the ruling, adding that no evidence of weapons, explosives, or attack plans had ever been presented against Kanu throughout the trial.
“For the avoidance of doubt, no gun, no grenade, no explosive, and no GPMG was ever found on Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. No civilian or military witness ever testified that he committed any offence known to Nigerian or international law,” the statement read.
The group reiterated that Kanu’s activities amounted to self-determination—a right recognized under major international treaties including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
IPOB argued that agitation for a referendum could not be equated to terrorism, noting that violence in the South-East escalated while Kanu was held in solitary confinement by the Department of State Services (DSS).
The group also accused Nigerian security agencies of previous violent actions against its members, referencing incidents in Nkpor, Aba, Onitsha and Emene. It criticised the government for failing to hold any officer accountable for those events.
Citing Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, IPOB described the judgment as a “legal impossibility,” insisting that no Nigerian can be convicted under a non-existent or repealed law. The group demanded answers from Justice Omotosho: “What written law did you rely on? Is that law still valid or has it been repealed? Can a dead law convict a living citizen?”
The separatist group pledged to dissect every part of the judgment in the coming days, warning that allowing such a ruling to stand would further damage the credibility of Nigeria’s judiciary.
IPOB stated that Kanu’s case has gone beyond Biafra agitation, calling it a critical test of Nigeria’s commitment to human rights, constitutional order, and international legal standards.
“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu remains a prisoner of conscience, a victim of extraordinary rendition, and the target of political persecution. No judicial manipulations can erase the facts,” the group added.
Comments