By Peter Omopo
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has condemned the life imprisonment sentence handed to its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, by the Federal High Court in Abuja, describing the judgment as unconstitutional and politically motivated.
Justice James Omotosho on Thursday sentenced Kanu to life in prison after finding him guilty on seven terrorism-related charges — a decision delivered in the defendant’s absence following his removal from court for alleged unruly conduct.
IPOB: ‘Kanu Committed No Offence Known to Law’
In a statement issued on Friday by IPOB’s spokesman, Emma Powerful, the group maintained that Kanu’s actions amounted only to peaceful agitation for self-determination, which it said is protected under international law.
“The IPOB wishes to inform the global community, diplomatic missions, international media, and lovers of freedom that we shall expose the fundamental defects, contradictions, and illegalities in the ruling issued by Justice James Omotosho,” the statement read.
Powerful argued that the court failed to apply Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that no person shall be convicted of a crime unless the offence and its punishment are clearly defined in a written law.
“For the avoidance of doubt, no gun, grenade, GPMG, explosive, or attack plan was ever found on Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. No civilian or military witness ever testified that he committed any offence known to Nigerian or international law,” he said.
‘Self-Determination Is Not Terrorism’
IPOB insisted that the Federal Government’s charges criminalised self-determination, a right enshrined in key international instruments, including:
- Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
- Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
“Agitation is not terrorism, and requesting a referendum is not a weapon,” the group stressed.
Insecurity in the South-East Not Linked to Kanu — IPOB
The statement further argued that violence in the South-East escalated while Kanu was in detention, claiming that incidents recorded in the region could not be attributed to him.
“It was IPOB members who were massacred in Nkpor, Aba, Onitsha, Emene, and other locations. None of the perpetrators has been held accountable,” the group alleged, describing Kanu as a victim of state persecution.
Group Questions Legal Basis of Conviction
IPOB also accused Justice Omotosho of relying on repealed laws, describing the verdict as “unconstitutional.”
“Our questions to Justice Omotosho are simple: What written law did you rely on to convict Mazi Nnamdi Kanu? Is that law extant or repealed? Why ignore binding Court of Appeal and Supreme Court authorities?” the statement asked.
The group said it will release a comprehensive legal rebuttal to the judgment in the coming days and will intensify engagement with international institutions over alleged human-rights violations.
IPOB Renews Call for UN-Supervised Referendum
Reiterating its long-standing stance, IPOB called for a United Nations–supervised referendum to determine the future of the South-East, insisting that the movement will continue through non-violent means.
Court’s Position
PUNCH Online earlier reported that Justice Omotosho held that Kanu’s broadcasts on Radio Biafra and orders enforcing sit-at-home directives constituted terrorism. The court also accepted prosecution claims linking him to attacks on security personnel allegedly carried out by members of the Eastern Security Network.
The judgment has sparked heightened tension across the South-East and renewed debate on the legal and political dimensions of the Biafra agitation.
