The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has denounced the Federal High Court judgment that sentenced its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment on seven terrorism-related charges, declaring the ruling unconstitutional and unjust.
In a statement issued on Friday by its spokesman, Emma Powerful, the group argued that Kanu had committed “no offence known to Nigerian law,” insisting that his actions amounted to lawful agitation for self-determination, a right the group says is protected under international conventions.
Powerful accused Justice James Omotosho, who delivered the judgment on Thursday, of failing to apply Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which stipulates that no one can be convicted of an offence not clearly defined in a written law.
IPOB described the ruling as fraught with “fundamental defects, contradictions, and illegalities,” asserting that the prosecution presented no weapons, attack plans, or witness testimony proving Kanu committed any offence.
“The only thing the Federal Government continues to criminalise is self-determination,” the statement said, referencing protections under several international human-rights charters.
“Self-determination is a protected right, not a crime. Agitation is not terrorism, and requesting a referendum is not a weapon.”
The group further argued that insecurity in the South-East grew after Kanu’s arrest and detention by the Department of State Services, insisting that violence recorded during that period could not be attributed to him.
It accused security forces of carrying out earlier attacks on IPOB members, for which no officials had been held accountable.
IPOB also questioned the legal basis of the conviction, alleging that Justice Omotosho relied on repealed provisions and ignored binding precedents from the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. It demanded clarification on which “extant written law” was used to convict Kanu.
The group said it plans to release a detailed rebuttal of the judgment and will intensify engagement with international organisations over what it described as judicial and human-rights violations. It also renewed its call for a United Nations–supervised referendum.
Justice Omotosho had held that Kanu’s broadcasts on Radio Biafra and his orders enforcing sit-at-home directives amounted to terrorism.
He further ruled that alleged attacks on security personnel by the Eastern Security Network formed part of the evidence supporting the conviction.
IPOB maintains that it will continue to challenge the judgment both locally and internationally.
Advertisement
