The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has issued a strongly worded press statement condemning the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and its detained leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. IPOB described the ruling as a "jurisprudential suicide" that rewards state-sponsored terrorism and undermines Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.

In the controversial judgment, Nigeria’s apex court overturned a previous discharge granted to Kanu by the Court of Appeal, reigniting criminal charges despite what IPOB insists was a constitutionally final acquittal.

"Constitutional Treason" – IPOB’s Reaction

IPOB's Directorate of Legal Affairs and Global Communications, represented by Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., slammed the Supreme Court’s judgment as a violation of Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees fundamental rights. The group accused the Court of:

  • Illegally suspending non-derogable rights such as fair hearing and protection against double jeopardy.

  • Ignoring international legal precedent that strips courts of jurisdiction where a defendant has been abducted by state agents.

  • Creating a “national security” exception to constitutional rights—something the Constitution, according to IPOB, does not permit even in times of war.

“The Supreme Court has shredded Nigeria’s social contract,” the statement reads. “This judgment is not law—it is tyranny disguised as jurisprudence.”

Global Isolation and Legal Precedents

IPOB further cited international cases such as Öcalan v. Turkey, S v. Ebrahim (South Africa), and the UK case R v. Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court—all of which nullified trials involving state abductions. IPOB said Nigeria now stands alone in endorsing such practices.

The statement also referenced a 2022 UN Working Group Opinion that called for Kanu’s release, accusing Nigerian authorities of defying international law.

"National Security" Argument Rejected

IPOB harshly criticized the Supreme Court's reliance on national security concerns, calling it a morally and legally bankrupt justification.

“National security cannot be built on state terrorism. A bench that licenses abduction as a prosecutorial tool commits judicial malpractice,” IPOB stated.

Demands by IPOB

The group concluded its statement with a list of bold demands, including:

  1. The immediate release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

  2. A reversal of the Supreme Court decision, citing the 2007 Asari Dokubo v. FRN case as precedent.

  3. An ICC investigation into alleged crimes against humanity by Nigerian officials.

  4. UN sanctions targeting those involved in the ruling and Kanu’s detention.

What This Means

This statement by IPOB intensifies growing international attention surrounding Kanu’s continued detention and the role of Nigeria’s judiciary in cases involving national security and human rights.

As of press time, the Nigerian government has not issued an official response to the IPOB statement.

#FreeNnamdiKanu #JudicialTreason #NigeriaNews #IPOB #SupremeCourt #HumanRights #NigerianJudiciary #Biafra #ConstitutionalCrisis