The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has issued a formal legal objection and public advisory challenging the validity of a purported medical report said to have been prepared by the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) on the health condition of its detained leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
In a statement signed by Barrister Chukwuma Benson Ihejiofor for the IPOB Legal Advisory Directorate, the group alleged that the document, dated September 22, 2025, is “invalid, inadmissible, and ethically compromised,” claiming it was produced before a judicial order authorizing an independent medical evaluation.
IPOB accused the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), the NMA, and the Federal High Court, Abuja, of colluding to manipulate evidence ahead of the next hearing scheduled for October 8.
“The report predates the court’s directive, was never released to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, and was allegedly prepared at the behest of the Attorney-General. This conduct violates judicial authority and medical ethics,” the statement read.
Grounds of Objection
The group cited several legal and procedural defects, including “temporal illegality,” absence of judicial supervision, and violation of the Evidence Act.
According to IPOB, a document created before a lawful order “cannot retrospectively satisfy that order,” citing Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) and FRN v. Iweka (2013) as precedents. It further argued that under Section 46(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, any medical report intended for evidentiary use must be conducted under direct court supervision.
The statement also referenced Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act 2011, asserting that documents made “in anticipation of litigation” are inadmissible.
Ethical and Procedural Concerns
IPOB said the NMA violated professional ethics by allegedly concealing the report from Kanu and his lawyers despite assurances from the association’s vice-president that it would be handed over on September 23.
“To prepare a medical report at the request of a litigant (the AGF), then withhold it from the patient while plotting to tender it in court, is a breach of both law and conscience,” the statement noted.
The group warned that admitting the report in court would amount to “judicial endorsement of executive fabrication” and an affront to constitutional fair hearing provisions under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.
Public Questions and Position
IPOB posed several questions to the authorities, including why the report was prepared before the court’s order, why it has not been served to the defendant, and why the AGF allegedly sent the NMA delegation instead of the court.
The Legal Directorate declared that any such report is “inadmissible, unconstitutional, and fraudulent,” and vowed to pursue all lawful remedies should it be tendered in court.
“Justice cannot rest upon deceit. A report that predates the judicial order and is concealed from the Defendant is a nullity,” Barrister Ihejiofor stated. “To tender it is to mock the law; to admit it is to betray justice.”
