IPOB Rejects Nnamdi Kanu’s Life Imprisonment Verdict

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has rejected Thursday’s judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which sentenced its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment on seven terrorism-related counts.

In a statement on Friday, IPOB’s spokesperson, Emma Powerful, insisted that Kanu “committed no offence known to Nigerian law,” arguing that his activities amounted solely to self-determination, a right protected under international conventions.

Powerful criticised the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, accusing the judge of failing to apply Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless it is clearly defined in a written law.

The statement read in part, “The 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 at any point that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu committed any offence known to Nigerian or international law. This is an undeniable fact.”

The group argued that the Federal Government was criminalising self-determination, which it said is guaranteed under Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, as well as relevant provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

“Self-determination is a protected right, not a crime. Agitation is not terrorism, and requesting a referendum is not a weapon,” the statement stressed.

IPOB further claimed that insecurity in the South-East worsened while Kanu was in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS), insisting that violence recorded during that period could not be attributed to him.

“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,” it added.

The group also challenged the legal foundation of the conviction, describing the ruling as “unconstitutional” and alleging that the court relied on repealed provisions.

According to IPOB, “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.”

It posed several questions to the judge, including what written law was used to convict Kanu, whether that law remains in force, and why binding decisions of appellate courts were ignored.

IPOB said it intends to issue a comprehensive response to the judgment in the coming days and will continue to engage international organisations on what it described as judicial and human-rights violations. The group also reiterated its call for a United Nations–supervised referendum.

LEADERSHIP reports that Justice Omotosho, ruling in Kanu’s absence, held that the IPOB leader’s Radio Biafra broadcasts and his sit-at-home directives amounted to terrorism.

The court also accepted the prosecution’s claims regarding Kanu’s alleged role in attacks on security personnel by members of the Eastern Security Network (ESN).