The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has vehemently rejected the recent ruling by the Federal High Court in Abuja, which sentenced its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment on seven terrorism-related counts. In a statement released on Friday, IPOB spokesperson Emma Powerful asserted that Kanu had committed “no offence known to Nigerian law,” arguing that his actions were rooted in self-determination, a right protected under international instruments. The group criticized Justice James Kolawole Omotosho's judgment, claiming it failed to apply constitutional provisions related to criminal convictions and that no weapons or attack plans were ever found on Kanu.

IPOB highlighted that no witness, civilian or military, ever testified to Kanu committing any offense under Nigerian or international law. They emphasized that the Nigerian government continues to criminalize self-determination, a right guaranteed by Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and Articles 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The group also pointed out that security challenges in the Southeast escalated while Kanu was in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS), disassociating him from incidents during that period and citing unaddressed alleged abuses from past security operations like “Operation Python Dance.”

IPOB further questioned the legal foundation of the conviction, alleging the court relied on provisions no longer in force and ignored Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which requires an offense to be defined in written law. They posed critical questions to Justice Omotosho regarding the specific written law relied upon, its current validity, and the disregard for binding Court of Appeal and Supreme Court authorities on trying individuals under non-existent statutes. IPOB plans to provide a detailed response and continue engagement with international bodies, reiterating its call for a UN-supervised referendum. Justice Omotosho, however, had ruled that Kanu’s broadcasts on Radio Biafra and sit-at-home orders amounted to terrorism, accepting evidence linking him to attacks by the Eastern Security Network (ESN).

Maxwell Okpara, Kanu’s lawyer, described the trial and conviction as deeply flawed and politically charged, accusing the Nigerian government of subjecting his client to “the highest injustice any other person can suffer.” Speaking to ARISE NEWS, Okpara outlined critical lapses, including the denial of Kanu’s right to file a final written address and the acceptance of questionable evidence. He insisted that Kanu never absconded or jumped bail, referencing a United Nations special reporter's decision. Okpara condemned the handling of evidence, stating that the court failed to evaluate several defense exhibits while relying heavily on a video clip despite objections. He clarified that Kanu never sacked his lawyers, but rather they withdrew, emphasizing that senior advocates involved, including Kanu Agabi and Onyechi Ikpeazu, were not remunerated for their work. Okpara also raised concerns about perceived ethnic bias, suggesting the judgment was influenced by Kanu being Igbo. He urged calm in the Southeast but insisted that Kanu’s lawful agitation must continue, noting that Kanu had instructed the sit-at-home order to stop. Okpara expects the Court of Appeal to review the trial proceedings for lawfulness and adherence to criminal procedure.

In a controversial development, Aloy Ejimakor, Kanu’s counsel, confirmed that Nnamdi Kanu has been moved from DSS custody in Abuja to a correctional center in Sokoto, far from his lawyers, family, and well-wishers. This transfer occurred barely 24 hours after Justice Omotosho’s judgment. The judge had sentenced Kanu to life imprisonment for counts one, four, five, and six; 20 years for count three; and five years for count seven, all sentences running concurrently. Justice Omotosho found Kanu guilty on all seven counts, stating that the prosecution successfully established every allegation and that Kanu offered no credible defense. The judge described Kanu as “a person who cannot be allowed to remain in the company of sane minds” and an “international terrorist,” noting his violent attitude throughout the trial made him unsuitable for Kuje prison, thus requiring protective custody in any part of Nigeria. The judge also ordered that Kanu be barred from using electronic devices except under ONSA supervision, and that items like the smuggled transmitter be forfeited to the federal government.

Kanu’s younger brother, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, speaking for the family, raised an alarm over an alleged plot by the Nigerian Government and South-East political leaders to assassinate Nnamdi Kanu in Sokoto Prison. He expressed deep concern, claiming the relocation was intended to make visits difficult and facilitate harm in a “remote location,” and voiced worry about insurgents targeting Kanu. Human rights activist Omoyele Sowore also alleged that the Tinubu regime secretly transferred Kanu to Sokoto to keep him isolated and vulnerable, fearing his influence if kept closer to his supporters in Kuje. Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, has called for calm among the Igbo community and Nigerians, acknowledging the unanticipated outcome and warning against actions that could escalate tensions. Amidst these developments, Kanu’s lawyers have vowed to appeal the judgment, and various stakeholders from the South-East continue to call for a political solution to his case.