Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has accused the Federal Government of employing what he termed “executive and judicial fraud” to keep him in detention since his extraordinary rendition from Kenya in 2021.
In an open letter to Nigerians, Kanu recalled that on March 1, 2017, the Federal High Court in Abuja ruled that IPOB was not an unlawful organisation — a judgment he said the government failed to challenge legally. Instead, according to him, the former Attorney-General, Abubakar Malami, secured an ex parte order to proscribe IPOB as a terrorist organisation, without notice to him or the group.
Kanu described this as the first clear sign of what he called an “unholy alliance” between the executive arm of government and sections of the judiciary, allegedly aimed at denying him justice and silencing those sympathetic to the self-determination movement.
He also cited the October 26, 2022 judgment of the Federal High Court which declared his rendition unconstitutional, condemned the treatment he received while in custody, and ordered his release along with compensation and an apology.
“Any responsible government would have complied with that judgment and used it as an opportunity to open constructive dialogue on the issues that led to this agitation,” Kanu wrote.
He further referenced the October 13, 2022 ruling of the Court of Appeal, which held that his forcible rendition stripped any Nigerian court of jurisdiction to try him. However, he said the federal government ignored that decision and instead secured a stay of execution from another panel of the same court — a process he described as irregular.
Kanu also argued that since the Supreme Court had criticised the revocation of his bail, the High Court ought to have restored it once the matter was returned for trial. Instead, the court refused, prompting him to request that the presiding judge recuse herself over allegations of bias.
According to him, although the judge accepted to step aside, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court reassigned the case back to her, a move he described as unlawful.
He insisted that he would not submit to any trial conducted by a court he believes lacks constitutional jurisdiction.
Debate Over Conviction and Life Imprisonment
Kanu’s decade-long trial took a decisive turn last week when the Federal High Court in Abuja convicted him on terrorism charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
The case, marked by controversies, adjournments, tense courtroom sessions and shifting legal strategies, ended abruptly with a judgment delivered within 24 hours — a development that immediately stirred national debate.
Some senior lawyers have hailed the ruling as sound and deserved; others insist it is fundamentally flawed and unlikely to survive appeal.
“Fair Trial Was Given,” Says Edun, SAN
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Wale Edun, argued that Justice James Omotosho handled the case with exceptional diligence, describing the decade-long saga as “a test of Nigeria’s judicial resilience.”
Edun maintained that Kanu enjoyed fair hearing, noting that:
all prosecution witnesses were cross-examined,
Kanu’s legal team initially defended him vigorously,
the judge repeatedly advised him against representing himself,
and the court even attempted to assign Legal Aid counsel.
He added that once a defendant refuses to defend himself, the court can only rely on the evidence before it.
However, Edun urged the government to consider political reconciliation, saying Nigeria needs healing and structural reforms, including state police and genuine federalism.
Self-Representation Was a Serious Error — Opara, SAN
Another senior lawyer, Victor Opara, described the judgment as procedurally troubling, mainly because Kanu represented himself.
Opara highlighted that terrorism-related offences carry severe penalties and require skilled legal defence. He stressed that Section 349(6) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act prohibits self-representation in capital-related cases, saying the judge should have compulsorily assigned counsel.
He added that while appellate courts are not sympathetic forums, Kanu may have arguable grounds if procedural lapses occurred.
Verdict Has No Legal Foundation — Ufeli
Human-rights lawyer, Evans Ufeli, strongly disagreed with the conviction, insisting it was built on “three fatal defects”:
1. Questionable statutory basis — Ufeli argued that the legal framework relied upon may have been repealed or improperly applied, violating the principle that no one can be convicted without a valid extant law.
2. Insufficient evidence — He said no weapons, direct links or incriminating acts were proven against Kanu.
3. Ignored jurisdictional objections — According to him, failing to determine whether the court had jurisdiction rendered the entire trial a nullity.
Ufeli believes the conviction is vulnerable on appeal and should be set aside.
A Strategic Sentence — Ojo
Public law expert, Gbenga Ojo, described the life sentence as a “policy decision” and a “compromise.”
He argued that terrorism and treason-related offences often carry the death penalty, but imposing a life sentence leaves room for political dialogue and possible pardon.
Ojo said it was necessary for the judiciary to conclude the case to avoid emboldening future separatist movements, but that the government should still pursue political reconciliation with Igbo leaders.
