The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has rejected the life sentence handed down to its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, by the Federal High Court in Abuja, describing Thursday’s judgment as unconstitutional and devoid of legal merit.
In a statement issued on Friday, IPOB spokesperson Emma Powerful insisted that Kanu “committed no offence known to Nigerian law,” arguing that his actions amounted to self-determination—a right protected under multiple international human-rights instruments.
‘Nnamdi Kanu Was Convicted for a Non-Existent Crime’ — IPOB
Powerful criticised Justice James Omotosho, who convicted Kanu on seven terrorism-related counts, accusing him of failing to apply Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that no person can be convicted of a crime not expressly defined in a written law.
The statement partly read:
“No gun, no grenade, no GPMG, no explosive, and no attack plan was ever found on Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
No witness—civilian or military—ever testified before any court that he committed any offence. This remains an undeniable fact.”
IPOB maintained that the Nigerian government has “criminalised self-determination,” even though it is a protected right under:
Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
“Self-determination is a right, not a crime. Agitation is not terrorism,” it stressed.
Insecurity Grew While Nnamdi Kanu Was in Custody — IPOB
The group also argued that violence in the South-East escalated during Kanu’s incarceration and could therefore not be attributed to him.
“It was Mazi Nnamdi Kanu who came under military attack during Operation Python Dance,” IPOB said.
“It was IPOB members who were massacred in Nkpor, Aba, Onitsha, Emene, and other places. Yet nobody has been held accountable. Now the same system seeks to convict the victim.”
The Judgment Is Unconstitutional
IPOB further argued that the conviction relied on repealed laws and violated binding appellate precedents.
It accused Justice Omotosho of ignoring settled constitutional provisions:
“Section 36(12) is simple and unambiguous.
A person shall not be convicted unless the offence and penalty are defined in a written law.
What written law did you rely on?
Is that law still valid, or has it been repealed?
Can a repealed law qualify as a written law under the Constitution?”
The group said it will release a more detailed legal response soon, including a compilation of what it described as “contradictions and illegalities” in the judgment.
IPOB Renews Call for UN-Supervised Referendum
The organisation reaffirmed its request for a United Nations–conducted referendum to determine the political future of the South-East.
Earlier reports indicated that Justice Omotosho ruled in Kanu’s absence that the IPOB leader’s Radio Biafra broadcasts and sit-at-home directives amounted to terrorism.
The court also held that his alleged influence over Eastern Security Network members implicated him in attacks on security personnel.
