IPOB Spokesperson Criticises Judiciary, Says Tinubu’s Rule-of-Law Remarks Target Three Judges

Also Read

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has reacted to President Bola Tinubu’s recent comments on the rule of law, stating that the remarks were indirectly aimed at three Nigerian judges who, according to the group, have “undermined judicial integrity” in recent years.

In a strongly worded statement on Thursday, IPOB spokesperson Emma Powerful said the individuals whose conduct should be under scrutiny are Justices James Omotosho, Lawal Garba, and Haruna Tsammani. The group accused the trio of delivering rulings that, in its view, “distorted constitutional principles and weakened confidence in the judiciary.”

The statement argues that while Tinubu’s speech appeared directed at political actors and law enforcement agencies, its implications “resonate most strongly” with members of the judiciary who presided over controversial decisions.

1. Justice James Omotosho — Allegations of Procedural Irregularities

IPOB accused Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court of issuing decisions that allegedly relied on repealed statutes and violated established judicial procedures.
According to the group:

The judge referenced the Criminal Code Act (Cap C45), which no longer applies in the Federal Capital Territory.
He reportedly attempted to rely on provisions that, IPOB argues, conflict with Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution regarding criminal offences.
The group also alleged that Omotosho disregarded higher-court pronouncements and restricted access to applications brought before his court.

IPOB claims that these actions contributed to “a climate of judicial inconsistency.”

2. Justice Lawal Garba (JSC) — Criticism of the December 15, 2023 Supreme Court Judgment

The statement further criticised Justice Lawal Garba for his lead judgment in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu delivered on 15 December 2023.
IPOB alleges that the decision:

Contradicted the constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy under Section 36(9).
Relied on legal provisions that had been repealed or were no longer applicable in the FCT.
Downplayed the binding status of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, despite earlier Supreme Court authority (e.g., Abacha v. Fawehinmi).

The group argued that the judgment contained “internal contradictions” and warns that its precedent has introduced legal uncertainty.

3. Justice Haruna Tsammani — Early Ruling Accused of Triggering Legal Confusion

IPOB also referenced a 2022 ruling by Justice Haruna Tsammani of the Court of Appeal, which it claims “laid the foundation” for subsequent judicial controversies. According to IPOB:

The judge revisited a matter in which a previous panel had already delivered a ruling, raising concerns about the doctrine of functus officio.
He used a civil procedure to overturn a criminal discharge, which legal analysts have described as procedurally irregular.
His reasoning invoked “national security considerations” in a manner IPOB says was not grounded in criminal procedure precedents.

The group contends that this decision created a pathway for later judgments that, in its view, further eroded procedural safeguards.

IPOB: “The Judiciary, Not Politicians, Damaged the Rule of Law”

The group maintains that the cumulative effect of the three judges’ decisions has had a profound impact on Nigeria’s legal system. IPOB argues that these rulings have contributed more to constitutional instability than actions by political actors.

According to the statement, “the last five years have witnessed significant erosion of judicial credibility,” claiming that the three judges played pivotal roles in shaping controversial judicial outcomes.

The group concluded that no presidential address, including Tinubu’s, can restore public confidence without a comprehensive review of these decisions and broader reforms within the judiciary.