IPOB Alleges Monetary Influence and Judicial Promotion Motivated Justice Omotosho’s Ruling Against Nnamdi Kanu

Also Read

 

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has alleged that Justice James Omotosho’s recent judgment imposing a life sentence on its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, was influenced by financial inducements and a promise of elevation to the Court of Appeal. The group made these claims in a statement issued by its spokesperson, Comrade Emma Powerful.

According to IPOB, the information reportedly came from what it described as a “reliable but anonymous source.” The movement insisted that the allegations were consistent with what it perceives as Justice Omotosho’s conduct throughout the trial, accusing him of displaying open bias and assuming what the group described as a “prosecutorial posture.”

IPOB further alleged that both Justice Omotosho and prosecuting counsel Barrister Awomolo SAN handled the matter as though they were personally invested in securing a conviction. The group claims this behavior reflects alleged pressure from government authorities to ensure a harsh judgment against Kanu, who is standing trial for charges related to his agitation for Biafran self-determination.

Throughout the proceedings, IPOB asserts that Kanu repeatedly demanded that the court and prosecutors cite the specific written law under which he was being tried. The group maintains that neither the presiding judge nor the prosecution presented such a law publicly, insisting instead on applying what IPOB calls an “abolished and unconstitutional” legal provision.

IPOB reiterated its long-standing position that neither Kanu nor the movement has violated any domestic or international law. It also drew parallels between this case and previous instances where judges who ruled unfavorably toward Kanu were later promoted, referencing the Appeal Court decision of October 13, 2022, which discharged and acquitted Kanu before the judgment was overturned at the Supreme Court.

The group warned that Justice Omotosho’s ruling, if allowed to stand, could set a dangerous precedent—normalizing extraordinary rendition, unlawful detention, and the application of non-existent laws in Nigeria’s judicial system. It argued that such a trajectory risks further eroding public confidence in the judiciary.

IPOB called on the Nigerian and international judicial community, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), to review Justice Omotosho’s conduct, particularly his alleged refusal to provide Kanu with the written legal basis for the charges. The movement said it intends to present evidence of what it views as judicial bias in the course of any independent investigation.

Concluding the statement, IPOB criticized the state of Nigeria’s justice system and referenced former U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial description of Nigeria, arguing that cases like Kanu’s exemplify systemic injustice.