A legal practitioner and human rights advocate, Christopher Chidera, has strongly criticised a recent publication by Eculaw Group which questioned the legality of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, allegedly issuing directives while in detention.
In a statement released on June 18, 2026, titled “Eculaw Group's Legal Illiteracy Exposed: The Desperate Theatre of a Paid Agent Peddling Fiction on Kanu's Leadership from Custody,” Chidera described the publication as propaganda filled with legal inaccuracies and deliberate misrepresentations.
The lawyer challenged Eculaw Group’s characterization of IPOB as an unlawful organisation, arguing that a March 1, 2017 judgment delivered by Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court in Abuja held that IPOB was not an unlawful society. According to him, that ruling remains valid unless overturned by a superior court.
Chidera further contended that the Federal Government’s subsequent ex parte proscription order against IPOB in September 2017 was obtained without giving the organisation an opportunity to be heard, raising constitutional concerns regarding the right to fair hearing.
He also referenced later judicial pronouncements, including a ruling by an Enugu State High Court, which he said declared the proscription unconstitutional and awarded damages.
On the issue of Kanu’s detention, the lawyer maintained that the Nigerian Correctional Service Act, 2019, does not impose a complete restriction on communication by inmates. He argued that detainees are entitled to receive visitors under regulated conditions and that statements or directives could lawfully emerge from such interactions.
According to Chidera, Kanu’s position as the leader of IPOB remains intact under the movement’s internal structure and does not depend on prison regulations. He insisted that any directives allegedly issued through IPOB’s structures, including its World Headquarters in Germany, should not be interpreted as unlawful operational command from custody.
The human rights lawyer also criticised the legal processes surrounding Kanu’s prosecution, alleging that the case was affected by procedural and jurisdictional issues. He argued that these concerns remain subject to ongoing appellate review.
Responding to claims that IPOB’s leadership structure reflects an excessive concentration of power, Chidera defended the organisation’s internal governance system, describing it as a model chosen by its members across different countries.
He maintained that Kanu’s reported decisions regarding the reorganisation of IPOB’s Directorate of State Services (DOS) represented an internal administrative matter rather than evidence of any legal anomaly.
Chidera concluded by urging the public and members of the legal community to critically examine the issues surrounding Kanu’s case and reject what he described as attempts to misrepresent the legal position regarding IPOB and its leader.
The statement was signed by Christopher Chidera Esq., who identified himself as a public advocate and human rights lawyer.
Meanwhile, the legal status of IPOB, the validity of its proscription, and issues surrounding Kanu’s ongoing legal battles remain subjects of continuing judicial and public debate in Nigeria.