Abuja, July 28, 2025 — The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has issued a strong statement cautioning against recent calls for the Federal High Court in Abuja to rely on a recent Kenyan High Court judgment to halt the ongoing trial of its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

In a press release signed by IPOB’s Directorate of Legal Affairs, Barrister Onyedikachi Ifedi argued that Justice James Omotosho, who is presiding over Kanu’s case, is constitutionally bound to uphold the decision of Nigeria’s Supreme Court, regardless of developments in foreign jurisdictions.

Supreme Court Decision Remains Binding

The group referenced the December 2023 Supreme Court judgment in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu, which, despite acknowledging the “criminal abduction” of Kanu, remitted the case back to trial. IPOB stressed that, under Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (Section 287), trial courts like the one led by Justice Omotosho cannot overrule or disregard Supreme Court decisions.

“No trial court—regardless of circumstance—is permitted to override, ignore, or set aside a Supreme Court judgment,” the statement read. “Even when such judgments appear flawed or perverse, lower courts must obey.”

Citing Rossek v. ACB Ltd (1993) and Adisa v. Oyinwola (2000), IPOB emphasized that only the Supreme Court has the power to reverse its own rulings or declare them per incuriam (delivered in error).

IPOB Highlights Violations of Nigerian and International Law

The group also criticized the Supreme Court’s handling of key legal and human rights issues surrounding Kanu’s rendition from Kenya. According to IPOB, the judgment failed to acknowledge provisions of:

  • Section 15 of Nigeria’s Extradition Act, which bars prosecution beyond the extradited offenses;

  • Relevant Nigerian case law, including Gabriel Ezeze v. The State (2004), which requires consent from the surrendering country (Kenya) before prosecuting new charges;

  • The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Nigeria is a signatory, and which forbids extraordinary rendition;

  • The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by Nigeria in 1993, which prohibits torture, arbitrary detention, and unfair trials.

“These omissions,” IPOB stated, “amount to a gross miscarriage of justice, and yet the remedy does not lie with the trial court but through further appellate challenges.”

Kenyan Court Judgment Not Binding in Nigeria

While IPOB commended the Kenyan judiciary for declaring the rendition illegal and unconstitutional, it clarified that the ruling holds no legal force within Nigeria unless domesticated through legislation or treaty, in accordance with Section 12 of the Nigerian Constitution.

“The Kenyan High Court’s ruling is morally persuasive but not legally enforceable in Nigeria,” the group explained.

A Call to the International Community

Reaffirming its position, IPOB concluded that the ongoing trial of Kanu—initiated through what it calls a “morally tainted and legally questionable” process—undermines the credibility of Nigeria’s justice system.

“The continued trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is a trial of the rule of law itself,” the statement warned, calling on the African Union, the international community, and human rights organizations to intervene.

Signed:
Barrister Onyedikachi Ifedi
For and on behalf of the Directorate of Legal Affairs, IPOB