The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has dismissed the ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which sentenced its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment on seven terrorism-related charges.
In a statement issued on Friday, IPOB’s spokesperson, Emma Powerful, insisted that Kanu “committed no offence known to Nigerian law,” arguing that his actions were rooted in the pursuit of self-determination, a right he said is protected under multiple international treaties.
He accused the trial judge, Justice James Kolawole Omotosho, of failing to apply constitutional standards required for criminal convictions.
According to Powerful, the group intends to highlight what it describes as several legal and procedural irregularities in the judgment.
He stated:
“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.”
He added that the Federal Government has continued to “criminalise self-determination,” citing Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
IPOB further argued that insecurity in the Southeast escalated while Kanu was in DSS custody, insisting that incidents recorded during that period could not be attributed to him.
The group referenced earlier military operations such as Operation Python Dance, alleging unresolved human rights abuses.
The separatist group also questioned the legal foundation of the conviction, alleging that the court relied on repealed or non-existent statutory provisions.
It pointed to Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be convicted of a crime unless the offence and its penalty are clearly defined in a written law.
Powerful said:
“Justice Omotosho has demonstrated, sadly, that he either cannot interpret or refuses to interpret simple English contained in Section 36(12)… Our questions to Justice Omotosho are simple: What written law did you rely on to convict Mazi Nnamdi Kanu? Is that law still in force? If it has been repealed, can a repealed law qualify as a written law under Section 36(12)? Why did you ignore binding Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions stating that no Nigerian can be tried or convicted under a repealed statute?”
IPOB reiterated its plan to issue a comprehensive legal response to the ruling and said it would continue engaging international human rights organisations.
The group also renewed its call for a UN-supervised referendum on self-determination.
Justice Omotosho had ruled that Kanu’s Radio Biafra broadcasts and instructions concerning sit-at-home orders constituted acts of terrorism and accepted evidence allegedly linking him to attacks carried out by members of the Eastern Security Network (ESN).
