‘Kanu Committed No Offence’—IPOB Faults Court Ruling

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) on Friday strongly condemned the Federal High Court in Abuja’s judgment, which sentenced its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment.

According to IPOB spokesperson Emma Powerful, the group viewed the Thursday, November 20, 2025 ruling as flawed, unconstitutional, and contrary to Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution.

Powerful accused Justice James Omotosho of deliberately ignoring Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which states that “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.”

He argued that the seven terrorism-related charges against Kanu were a facade, asserting that Kanu “committed no offence known to Nigerian law.

“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,” Powerful said.

He emphasised that no weapons, explosives, or attack plans were ever found in Kanu’s possession.

“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,” Powerful said.

The spokesperson further stated that Kanu’s agitation for Biafran self-determination is a protected right under international law.

He explained, “The only thing the Federal Government continues to criminalise 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 and Article 1 of 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.”

Powerful also highlighted the military operations against IPOB, alleging that it was Kanu and his family members who were targeted.

“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,” he added.

The IPOB spokesperson questioned the legal basis of Justice Omotosho’s verdict, labelling it “unconstitutional” and claiming the judge relied on repealed laws.

“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.

“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?”

Powerful concluded that IPOB would release a comprehensive response addressing the judgment in the coming days.

The Federal High Court had sentenced Kanu to life imprisonment, departing from what the judge said was the legal prescription of the death penalty under the terrorism statute.

Justice Omotosho maintained that the severity of the alleged offences constrained the court to choose what he termed a “merciful but lawful” punishment.

However, Uchechi Okwu-Kanu, wife of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has disclosed plans to appeal the judgment, in what she believed was “a judgment that would not survive the appeal.”