IPOB Questions Legal Basis Of Ruling On Nnamdi Kanu, Seeks Clarity From Federal High Court

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has called on Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, to clarify the legal provisions underpinning his recent ruling involving the group’s leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

In a statement signed by its spokesperson, Comrade Emma Powerful, IPOB said it intends to analyse and publicly highlight what it views as constitutional concerns arising from the judgment.

According to IPOB, no weapons or attack materials were presented in court in connection with Mr. Kanu, and the group maintains that there was no witness testimony alleging any offence under Nigerian or international law.

IPOB emphasized that its position is based on its understanding of court proceedings and legal representations.

The organisation reiterated its long-held stance that calls for self-determination fall under internationally recognised rights, including provisions in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, as well as Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

IPOB argued that advocacy for a referendum or political agitation should not be construed as a criminal act.

It also noted that Mr. Kanu remained in custody during recent security challenges in the South-East and said this should, in its view, be taken into account when assessing his level of involvement.

Addressing the legal issues, IPOB referenced Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that no person can be convicted of a criminal offence unless it is expressly defined in written law.

The group asked Justice Omotosho to specify the written law relied upon in arriving at the ruling and whether such law remains in force.

The statement added that IPOB will continue to examine the judgment and raise what it considers constitutional and procedural questions. It said the matter has implications for human rights, judicial standards, and the rule of law in Nigeria.

IPOB reaffirmed what it described as its commitment to peaceful advocacy and its intention to continue engaging international bodies in pursuit of its goals through lawful and diplomatic channels.

See the unedited IPOB statement

PRESS STATEMENT BY THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA (IPOB)

21 NOVEMBER 2025

SIGNED BY EMMA POWERFUL, IPOBSPOKESPERSON MEDIA AND PUBLICITY SECRETARY FOR THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA (IPOB)

JUSTICE OMOTOSHO MUST EXPLAIN THE LAW UNDER WHICH HE PURPORTED TO CONVICT MAZI NNAMDI KANU

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) wishes to inform the global community, diplomatic missions, international media, and lovers of freedom that we shall, in the coming days and weeks, lay bare the fundamental defects, contradictions, and illegalities that define the recent ruling issued by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

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.

THE ONLY “OFFENCE” IS SELF-DETERMINATION, WHICH IS NOT A CRIME ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD

The only thing the Nigerian government continues to criminalize 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 (ICCPR), and

Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Self-determination is a protected right, not a crime.

Agitation is not terrorism, and requesting a referendum is not a weapon.

Meanwhile, the politically manufactured insecurity in the South-East escalated while Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was in solitary confinement at the DSS facility, cut off from the outside world. No honest observer can attribute to him acts that occurred while he was physically incapable of involvement.

IT WAS THE NIGERIAN MILITARY THAT ATTACKED MAZI NNAMDI KANU AND IPOB MEMBERS

IPOB reminds the world that:

It was Mazi Nnamdi Kanu who was attacked by the Nigerian military during Operation Python Dance.

It was IPOB family members who were massacred at Nkpor, Aba, Onitsha, Emene, and other locations.

Not one government officer or soldier has been held accountable for these atrocities.

Yet the same system now seeks to convict the victim.

JUSTICE OMOTOSHO’S RULING IS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY UNDER SECTION 36(12)

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?

A judge cannot manufacture an offence from thin air.

A court cannot resurrect a dead law.

A repealed legislation cannot convict a living person.

WE WILL EXPOSE THE RULING COMPLETELY

The global family of IPOB will, beginning immediately, expose and dissect every line of Omotosho’s ruling for the world to see the depth of the judicial malpractice at play. Nigeria must not be allowed to tarnish the last remnants of its judiciary’s credibility by permitting such unconstitutional conduct.

This is no longer merely a Biafra issue.

It is a human rights issue.

It is a constitutional issue.

It is an international law issue.

And it is a test of whether Nigeria respects the rule of law or has descended into full judicial authoritarianism.

ONYENDU IS A PRISONER OF CONSCIENCE

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu remains a prisoner of conscience, a victim of extraordinary rendition, and the target of a political persecution orchestrated by the Nigerian state. No amount of judicial contortion can change the truth.

IPOB REMAINS COMMITTED TO PEACEFUL SELF-DETERMINATION

We reaffirm our commitment to peaceful advocacy, international law, and the pursuit of a United Nations–supervised referendum.

IPOB will continue to engage global institutions to ensure that this latest judicial absurdity attracts the condemnation it deserves.

COMRADE EMMA POWERFUL SPOKESPERSON/MEDIA AND PUBLICITY SECRETARY FOR THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA (IPOB).