The Indigenous People of Biafra has asked Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja to explain the legal provisions that guided his recent ruling involving its detained leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
The group made its position known in a statement issued by its spokesperson, Comrade Emma Powerful, stressing that it intends to carefully analyse the judgment and draw public attention to areas it considers constitutionally questionable.
IPOB stated that throughout the trial, no weapons or offensive materials were tendered before the court in connection with Kanu. It also noted that no witness came forward to accuse him of committing any crime under Nigerian or international law. According to the group, its views are informed by its understanding of the court proceedings and the arguments presented by legal representatives.
Reaffirming its long-standing stance, IPOB maintained that calls for self-determination fall within internationally recognised rights. It cited the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, as well as the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as frameworks that protect such advocacy. The group insisted that agitating for a referendum does not amount to a criminal offence.
The organisation further argued that recent security challenges in the South-East should not be linked to Kanu, noting that he has remained in custody throughout the period. It said this fact should be considered when assessing allegations against him, especially concerning issues of unrest in the region.
IPOB also highlighted Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that no individual can be convicted of a crime unless the offence is clearly defined in a written law. It therefore asked Justice Omotosho to identify the specific written law relied upon in delivering the ruling, and to confirm whether that law is still valid and enforceable.
The group added that it will continue to review the judgment and raise what it believes are important constitutional and procedural issues. It stressed that the case has broad implications for human rights, judicial integrity, and the rule of law in Nigeria, and reaffirmed its commitment to peaceful advocacy and continued engagement with international bodies through lawful means.
