The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has rejected the life imprisonment handed to its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, insisting that the ruling by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, lacked any basis in written law.
In a statement issued by its Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful, the group accused the judge of delivering a judgment not founded on any existing legal provisions, contrary to constitutional requirements. IPOB said it would, in the coming days, expose what it described as “fundamental defects, contradictions, and illegalities” in the ruling.
The organisation argued that no weapons, attack materials, or incriminating items were ever recovered from Kanu, and that no witness—civilian or military—had testified that he committed any offence recognised under Nigerian or international law.
According to IPOB, the Nigerian government’s only grievance is Kanu’s pursuit of self-determination, which the group maintains is protected under Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 1 of both the ICCPR and ICESCR.
“Agitation is not terrorism, and requesting a referendum is not a weapon,” the statement said. IPOB added that insecurity in the South-East worsened while Kanu was held in solitary confinement, making it impossible for him to be linked to alleged attacks.
The group reiterated accusations that its members were victims of military operations such as Python Dance, citing Nkpor, Aba, Onitsha and Emene as places where many of its members were allegedly killed with no security personnel held accountable.
Central to its challenge is Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that no person can be convicted of an offence not defined in a written law.
IPOB asked Justice Omotosho to clarify what specific written law was used to convict Kanu, whether it still exists or has been repealed, and why binding appellate and Supreme Court precedents were ignored.
“A judge cannot manufacture an offence from thin air. A court cannot resurrect a dead law,” the group insisted, describing the judgment as a constitutional and international law concern.
IPOB reaffirmed its stance that Kanu is a victim of extraordinary rendition and political persecution. It said it would continue its peaceful agitation and push for a UN-supervised referendum while engaging international bodies to ensure the ruling receives global condemnation.
On Thursday, November 20, 2025, Justice Omotosho convicted Kanu on seven terrorism-related charges, including incitement, issuing sit-at-home directives, leading a proscribed group, and allegedly importing a radio transmitter used for Radio Biafra broadcasts.
The judge imposed life imprisonment on four of the counts and sentenced him to additional terms of 20 years and five years on others, all to run concurrently. Although prosecutors sought the death penalty, Justice Omotosho said international trends favoured mercy over capital punishment.
Kanu was also ordered to be held in protective custody at a location other than Kuje Prison and barred from accessing digital devices. The alleged radio transmitter was forfeited to the government.
Justice Omotosho described Kanu as an “international terrorist,” citing alleged threats against foreign embassies and directives encouraging attacks on security forces.
Kanu’s legal team has announced plans to file an appeal against the judgment.
Leave a Reply