IPOB Opposes Life Imprisonment for Nnamdi Kanu, Asserting That Their Agitation is not a Criminal Act.

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

In a statement on Friday, IPOB spokesman Emma Powerful asserted that Kanu “committed no offence recognized by Nigerian law,” emphasizing that his activities represented a pursuit of self-determination—a right protected under international law.

Powerful criticized the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, alleging that the court ignored Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that no one shall be convicted of an offence unless it is defined in a written law.

The statement said, “The IPOB wishes to inform the global community, diplomatic missions, international media, and defenders of freedom that we will, in the coming days and weeks, expose the fundamental flaws, contradictions, and illegalities in the recent ruling. No weapons, explosives, or attack plans were ever found on Nnamdi Kanu, and no witness testified that he committed any offence under Nigerian or international law. The Federal Government continues to criminalize 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.”

IPOB also contended that insecurity in the South-East increased while Kanu was in custody of the Department of State Services, and that violence during that period could not be attributed to him. The statement added, “It was Nnamdi Kanu who was attacked by the Nigerian military during ‘Operation Python Dance.’ IPOB family members were killed in Nkpor, Aba, Onitsha, Emene, and other locations. Yet no government officer or soldier has been held accountable, while the system now seeks to convict the victim.”

The group questioned the legal basis for Kanu’s conviction, describing the ruling as “unconstitutional” and claiming the judge relied on repealed laws. Powerful said, “Justice Omotosho has either failed or refused to interpret Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which clearly states that a person cannot be convicted of a criminal offence unless the law defining it exists. What written law did the court rely on to convict Nnamdi Kanu? If the law has been repealed, can it serve as a basis for conviction? Why were binding Court of Appeal and Supreme Court authorities disregarded?”

IPOB said it will release a detailed response to the judgment in the coming days and will continue engaging international bodies over what it called judicial and human-rights concerns. The group reiterated its call for a United Nations–supervised referendum.

The court had ruled, in Kanu’s absence, that his broadcasts on Radio Biafra and directives enforcing sit-at-home orders amounted to terrorism. The judgment also cited his alleged involvement in attacks on security personnel by members of the Eastern Security Network as part of the prosecution’s evidence.