The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has rejected the ruling of the Federal High Court in Abuja that sentenced its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment on seven terrorism-related counts.
In a statement on Friday, the group’s spokesperson, Emma Powerful, said Kanu had “committed no offence known to Nigerian law” and argued that his actions amounted to self-determination, which he described as a right protected under international instruments.
Grow your business with us
He said the judgment delivered by Justice James Kolawole Omotosho failed to apply constitutional provisions relating to criminal convictions.
Powerful said the group would set out what it described as legal and procedural concerns arising from the judgment.
“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,” he said. “ 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.
“The only thing the Federal Government continues to criminalise is self-determination, a right guaranteed under Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.”
IPOB also said the security challenges in the Southeast escalated while Kanu was in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS), adding that incidents recorded during that period could not be linked to him.
The group cited previous security operations in the region, including “Operation Python Dance,” and alleged abuses that it claimed had not been addressed.
The group questioned the legal foundation of the conviction and claimed the court relied on provisions that were no longer in force. It also referenced Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be convicted of an offence unless it is defined in a written law.
He said, “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, which states clearly ‘A person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty therefor is prescribed in a written law’.
“This constitutional provision is short, simple, and unambiguous. Our questions to Justice Omotosho—questions the entire world deserves answers to—are as follows: 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 a repealed law ever qualify as a written law under Section 36(12)? Why did you ignore binding Court of Appeal and Supreme Court authorities stating that no Nigerian can be tried or convicted under a non-existent or repealed statute?”
IPOB said it intends to provide a detailed response to the ruling and to continue its engagement with international bodies. It restated its call for a referendum supervised by the United Nations.
Justice Omotosho had held that Kanu’s broadcasts on Radio Biafra and directives relating to sit-at-home orders amounted to terrorism and accepted evidence linking him to attacks carried out by members of the Eastern Security Network (ESN).