IPOB Calls For Nnamdi Kanu’s Release, Cites Legal Concerns

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has outlined a series of legal arguments to justify the immediate release of its detained leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, as the Federal High Court in Abuja prepares to rule on a no-case submission in his ongoing trial.

In a statement issued on Tuesday by the group’s spokesman and media/publicity secretary, Emma Powerful, titled “Eight Questions That Must Be Answered Before Any Talk of Trial: Why Nigeria Has No Case Against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu”, IPOB argued that the federal government has failed to establish a valid case against Kanu.

The group reminded the court of previous judicial pronouncements made by Justice Binta Nyako, stating: “Justice Binta Nyako once told the Nigerian State that no government can permanently rely on intimidation in place of evidence.”

It added: “Today, we wish to remind His Lordship Justice James Omotosho that no court can substitute sentiment for law.”

As the court approaches its decision on Kanu’s no-case submission, IPOB poses a number of legal questions which it claimed the court must consider before determining whether the trial should continue.

“As the ruling on the no-case submission of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu approaches, these are the questions every citizen, every lawyer, every judge and Justice Omotosho himself must answer before pronouncing whether there is a case to answer or not.

“If these questions are not answered affirmatively and lawfully, then the prosecution has failed, and the court has no choice but to discharge the defendant.”

Among the questions IPOB asked was: “Can a prima facie case be established in the absence of an investigation report?”

The group argued that an investigation report is fundamental to establishing the basis for any criminal charge, citing Ikomi v. The State (1986), where the Supreme Court held that: “Failure to conduct a proper investigation renders the entire prosecution incurably defective”.

“In this case, no investigation report linking Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to the specific allegations such as incitement, terrorism and treason has been produced. The lack of any forensic trail or investigative analysis is fatal to the charge.”

IPOB further questioned the reliability of testimonies provided solely by Department of State Services (DSS) operatives: “Can a prima facie case be established only on the testimony of 5 DSS officers? When the testimony is uncorroborated or partisan.”

Citing Adele v. The State (1995) and Musa v. The State (2019), IPOB emphasized the unreliability of hearsay and intelligence-based testimonies without firsthand evidence.

“In this case, all five DSS officers are compromised by their institutional bias, and none has provided firsthand knowledge of any offence. This is not evidence; it is theatre.”

On the issue of alleged co-conspirators, IPOB questioned the absence of named collaborators in the charges: “Can a prima facie case be said to have been made without a collaborator named in the charge?”

The group referenced Patrick Njovens & Ors v. The State (1973), asserting that the lack of named co-defendants renders the case speculative.

Regarding the alleged harm caused by Kanu’s actions, IPOB asked: “Can a prima facie case be established without a victim?”

“Who was incited? Who was attacked? Who is the injured party? None has been presented. No complainant has testified. The absence of a named or identified victim renders the allegation empty.”

The group rejected the claim that Kanu’s leadership of IPOB alone constitutes a crime: “Can prima facie be established solely on account of IPOB leadership?”

“No such act has been identified in Mazi Kanu’s case. The charge is based solely on assumed guilt by association, a perversion of justice.”

They also dismissed claims that Kanu’s broadcasts constitute criminal activity: “Can a broadcast alone establish a prima facie case?”

“Moreover, the place of broadcast and whether it falls within Nigerian jurisdiction must be proven, especially when international boundaries are involved. The prosecution has failed to identify time, place, or audience affected.”

Concerning the possibility of conviction, IPOB stated: “Can a negative outcome on all the above still lead to a conviction? The answer is no.

“Where there is no victim, no investigator, no co-conspirator, no actus reus, no jurisdictional link, the law cannot proceed to conviction on air.”

IPOB further questioned the use of the proscription order as legal grounds: “Can ex parte proscription establish a prima facie case? Never is the answer.”

“A proscription obtained without hearing IPOB or Mazi Kanu is administrative, not judicial. It cannot substitute for proof of a criminal offence.”

The group concluded by warning against what it described as the politicization of the judiciary: “The Nigerian government has no case unless Justice Omotosho wishes to join those who have desecrated Nigeria’s judiciary; he must answer these questions honestly, lawfully, and courageously.

“Any court that sidesteps these critical issues is no longer a court of justice but a tool of oppression.

“This is not just a legal crisis. This is a moral reckoning. And to all Nigerians South, North, East, and West this is a test of how long you will allow injustice to reign under the guise of the law.”