The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has called on Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, to publicly explain the written law relied upon in the recent ruling against its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, saying the judgment is constitutionally defective. In a 21 November 2025 press statement signed by spokesperson Emma Powerful, IPOB accused the court of convicting Kanu on non-existent or repealed offences and warned it will publish a line-by-line analysis of the ruling.
Key points (what happened and IPOB’s claims)
IPOB says no weapon, document or witness established that Kanu committed any offence; the group insists the only action criminalised is a peaceful demand for self-determination.
The organisation cites Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution — which IPOB paraphrases as requiring that “an offence and its penalty must be prescribed in a written law” before anyone can be convicted — and says Justice Omotosho failed to identify any extant written law that supports the conviction.
IPOB argues that the charge relied on a repealed statute (it alleges the Terrorism Prevention/Criminal statutes used are no longer on the books) and that a judge cannot “resurrect” a dead law to convict a living person.
The statement stresses that Kanu was in solitary DSS detention for periods cited by his lawyers and therefore could not have been responsible for events the State links to him. IPOB also frames Kanu as a “prisoner of conscience” and reiterates its commitment to peaceful advocacy and an internationally supervised referendum.
Quotes
“Justice Omotosho must explain the law under which he purported to convict Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,” said Emma Powerful in the IPOB release.
“The only thing the Nigerian government continues to criminalise is self-determination, which is not a crime under international law,” the statement added.
Legal context (plain language)
What Section 36(12) means (IPOB’s contention): The Constitution bars conviction unless the act and penalty are defined in a valid written law. IPOB reads this as a bar on convictions founded on statutes that have been repealed or that never existed in the jurisdiction.
What IPOB is arguing: If the prosecution relied on a statute that has been repealed, or on a law that never applied in the FCT, then under the constitutional guarantee the conviction is invalid. IPOB says the court must therefore identify the precise statutory provision used and show that it is in force.
What readers should note: IPOB presents these as legal objections; whether they will succeed is a matter for appellate courts to decide. Courts routinely consider issues of statutory vitality, jurisdiction and fundamental fair-trial guarantees on appeal.
Background (brief)
The dispute over Kanu’s trial has featured legal challenges about rendition, jurisdiction, the identity and credibility of witnesses, and whether applicable terrorism laws were in force at the relevant times.
IPOB’s statement follows earlier filings and public claims by Kanu’s defence team about motions they say remain pending (including, the group says, a Motion to Arrest Judgment). The movement says it will publish detailed commentary and evidence challenging the judgment.
What IPOB wants
1. A public explanation from Justice Omotosho identifying the exact written law relied upon for the conviction and confirming that it was in force at the time of the alleged offences.
2. Judicial review of whether any statute used by the prosecution was repealed or otherwise inapplicable.
3. International attention to what IPOB describes as a human-rights and rule-of-law issue.
How this matters (implications)
IPOB frames the matter as both a constitutional and human-rights question with political and international dimensions. A successful appellate challenge would raise questions about conviction validity and might require re-examination of related rulings; conversely, an appellate rejection of IPOB’s arguments would affirm the trial court’s findings.
The broader stakes: observers say high-profile criminal trials that raise constitutional issues often produce parallel legal and political battles — including calls for transparency about evidence, witness identity and procedural fairness.
![[BREAKING NEWS]:Nigerians In Trouble As Leaked Documents Reveals Tinubu’s Agreement with Controversial Business Tycoon](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj39gfKFg8aZ2Pq_eoxzYPY7vQoQB4vJQ5iXjbzlb028e9rhOqJn7LU834VyPOGJO6KMqyY25tdbE8_AbZYrvJ2A-MPe77GnAXXTxKlCpcHy3Xmrpk5voaOwmC_bUYUoWrh8i8Vya7_odsgKRhByqzF7mVi_H-AQTn3iV_Yo1GkZhLibfcuztuBuz3XE4xS/w680/IMG_9371.jpeg)
