Legal Expert Slams Supreme Court Ruling on Nnamdi Kanu, Defends IPOB’s Legitimacy

— Njoku Jude Njoku Issues Blistering Rejoinder to Olugbenga Adebamiwa’s Commentary

A legal analyst and public affairs commentator, Njoku Jude Njoku, has published a scathing rebuttal to a recent opinion article by Olugbenga Adebamiwa, which he described as a "dishonest diatribe" against law, reason, and fundamental liberties. The rejoinder, titled “Nnamdi Kanu, IPOB, and the Price of Selective Justice – A Nation at Crossroads”, fiercely defends the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and their detained leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

In the rejoinder released on Monday, August 4, 2025, Njoku dismissed Adebamiwa’s views as “intellectual vandalism” rooted in ignorance and ethnic bias. He accused the Nigerian state of weaponizing the law against IPOB, manipulating court processes, and flouting constitutional guarantees.

IPOB Not a Terrorist Group – Njoku

Addressing what he called the “most offensive falsehood,” Njoku stated that IPOB is not a terrorist organization, referencing a 2017 ruling by the Federal High Court in Abuja that declared the group lawful. He emphasized that the ex parte order used to proscribe IPOB was political and unchallenged in court, and that no foreign country recognizes IPOB as a terrorist entity.

“Only a terminally dysfunctional state like Nigeria would criminalize a non-violent self-determination group,” he wrote.

Kanu Never Convicted – Presumption of Innocence Ignored

Njoku also criticized the ongoing vilification of Nnamdi Kanu, stressing that he has not been convicted in any court, either in Nigeria or abroad. He warned that branding him guilty without trial not only violates constitutional provisions but also amounts to criminal defamation.

Court of Appeal Ruling Still Stands

The legal expert referenced the October 2022 ruling of the Court of Appeal in Abuja, which discharged Kanu based on the illegality of his extraordinary rendition from Kenya. He noted that while the Supreme Court later ruled on the case, it did not overturn this critical finding, instead sidestepping the jurisdictional question altogether.

“The Supreme Court’s failure to address the illegality of Kanu’s rendition makes its decision incurably defective,” Njoku said, calling the apex court’s judgment a “judicial travesty.”

Army’s Role in Escalating Violence

Njoku further countered narratives blaming IPOB for unrest in the South-East, asserting that the violence began with the Nigerian Army’s controversial “Operation Python Dance II” in 2017. He pointed to reports from Amnesty International and eyewitnesses detailing alleged human rights abuses and extrajudicial killings in the region.

Right to Self-Determination Protected by Law

Defending IPOB’s push for a referendum, Njoku referenced Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, arguing that the group’s advocacy for self-determination is lawful and protected under international treaties to which Nigeria is a signatory.

“A peaceful call for self-determination is not terrorism. It is a legal and moral right,” he said.

A Nation at Crossroads

In his concluding remarks, Njoku described Nnamdi Kanu as a political prisoner and warned that suppressing legitimate dissent through misinformation, media blackmail, and judicial manipulation would deepen Nigeria’s political crisis.

“Truth has become treason in Nigeria,” he wrote. “Attempts to vilify Kanu and IPOB will not erase the legal facts or the people’s desire for justice.”

The rejoinder has since sparked wide reactions across social media and legal circles, reigniting debate over Nigeria’s handling of IPOB, rule of law, and the future of national unity.