IPOB backs Nnamdi Kanu, upholds DOS dissolution

SKAiF NewsNG SNN SKAiF NewsNG SNN
Jun 20, 2026 - 16:00
0 1
Kanu raises alarm, alleges tricks by FG to perpetually hold him down Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has drawn attention to what he described as serial executive and judicial fraud being perpetrated against him since his extraordinary rendition in 2021. In an open letter addressed to Nigerians yesterday, Kanu said: ‘’In a judgment entered on March 1, 2017, the Federal High Court, Abuja, ruled that the ‘IPOB is not an unlawful group’. At the time, it received widespread publicity which can be verified. ‘’This landmark ruling (made by the court before it turned unjust) emanated in a criminal proceedings that required ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ and in which the federal government and my humble self presented our respective cases. ‘’Alas! Instead of the federal government to go on appeal as the law mandated (if they are dissatisfied with the judgment), the former Attorney-General (Abubakar Malami) went behind closed doors with a letter signed by late Abba Kyari and got IPOB proscribed/tagged a terrorist group in an ex parte proceedings that conducted without notice to me or to the IPOB. ‘’This abominable incident was the earliest sign yet that the government and its judiciary have struck an unholy and fraudulent alliance to deny me my rights and thereby imperil the life and liberty of millions who identity with IPOB. ‘’On October 26, 2022, a Federal High Court declared my extraordinary rendition and detention as unconstitutional, stating that: ‘the manner of arrest and detention of the Applicant (Mazi Nnamdi Kanu) in Kenya, his continued detention in Abuja, his subjection to physical and mental trauma by the Respondents, the inhuman and degrading treatment meted out to the Applicant amounts to a brazen violation of the Applicant’s fundamental right to dignity of his person and threat to life under Section 34 (1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).’ ‘’The court further ordered the federal government to apologize to me and pay me compensation. In a responsible society and well-ordered, run by a responsible government, this judgment is sufficient to have ended my lengthy detention and encourage the federal government to constructively engage me on the issue of the self-determination agitation that triggered this whole saga. ‘’Pedal back to October 13, 2022, when the Court of Appeal held that: ‘The courts must never shy away from calling the executive to order when they resort to acts of ‘executive lawlessness.’ ‘’The duty of the courts is to maintain a balance between ensuring that law and order is obeyed and the protection of the individual from oppressive actions by the executive. ‘’By the forcible abduction and extraordinary rendition of the Appellant (Mazi Nnamdi Kanu) from Kenya to this country on the 27th day of June 2021, in violation of international and state laws, the lower court or, indeed, any court in this country is divested of jurisdiction to entertain charges against the Appellant’. ‘’Despite the clarity of this judgment and its comportment with reason, the federal government refused to release me from detention while it went behind closed doors and connived with three other justices of the court of appeal who fraudulently and swiftly sat on appeal over the judgment and practically destroyed it by issuing what they termed ‘a stay of execution’. ‘’One may then ask: Is it not abominable for a court to stay a judgment the government already disobeyed? In a plethora of cases, the Supreme Court has held that anybody who disobeys a related court order cannot be given any judicial relief until such order is obeyed. ‘’This is a sound reasoning that applied to everybody but is fraudulently overlooked when it comes to my case. Fast forward to 15th December 2023 when the Supreme Court sent back my case to the Federal High Court for trial. ‘’For avoidance of doubt, that was not the only decision the Supreme Court made. It also decided that my bail should not have been revoked and it went on to state clearly that the judge exhibited significant and unacceptable bias by revoking my bail. ‘’In a sane society, one would expect that when the High court received my case from the Supreme Court and hankered down for trial, it was also duty-bound to restore my bail in line with the pronouncement of the apex court. ‘’But that did not happen. Why? Well, your guess is as good as mine and that is: the Court connived with the federal government to continue my detention in violation of Section 287 of the Nigerian Constitution. ‘’On September 24, 2024, I decided that I have had enough of taking my chances at getting justice from a judge that, in June 2021, sent me to secret police detention without fair hearing, later refused to transfer me to prison to better prepare for my trial and capped it all by refusing to restore my bail and instead ordering an accelerated trial in the face of the reality that I will never get a fair trial whilst detained at the DSS. ‘’These are the major reasons that compelled me to request recusal of the judge and having consented to it, she proceeded to make an order removing herself from my case. That order was never challenged on appeal; thus it remains extant to this day. ‘’But instead of the Chief judge of the Federal High Court to do the lawful thing by assigning my case to another judge, he connived with the federal government to eat crow and send my case to a judge that stands recused by a valid order. ‘’To conclude this open letter, let me make it clear that it should in no way be construed to mean that there are no decent judges in Nigeria that can be trusted to deliver even-handed justice in my case. That is not the issue. ‘’Instead, the issue is that my case is deliberately being shielded from judges and justices that are deemed to be committed to doing justice, even when it means that the federal government must lose. ‘’Be that as it may, if it will take the rest of my life in detention to produce me before a proper and impartial court, so be it. But let me say this for the world to know: I will not succumb to any trial conducted by any judge or court whose jurisdiction does not pass constitutional muster. Not now, not ever.’’

By Chimaobi Nwaiwu

NNEWI — The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has declared that its Code of Conduct remains the supreme governing authority of the movement, insisting that the dissolution of the 3rd Administration of its Directorate of State (DOS) is final and binding.

In a statement issued on Friday by its Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful, IPOB described the controversy surrounding the dissolution as “unfortunate and unnecessary,” stressing that no structure within the movement can operate independently of the authority that created it.

The group maintained that the DOS was an administrative organ established by its Supreme Leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, and therefore cannot claim autonomy from the constitutional framework of IPOB.

“The IPOB Code of Conduct is the supreme governing instrument of our movement. It defines our structure, regulates our conduct, establishes our hierarchy, and binds every member without exception,” the statement read.

According to IPOB, the Directorate of State was created to assist in the administrative management of the organisation and remains subject to the authority of the Supreme Leader.

It argued that the power to create any organ within IPOB inherently includes the power to dissolve or restructure it.

“An administrative structure created by the Supreme Leader under the Constitution of IPOB cannot lawfully claim independence from the constitutional authority that established it,” the statement said.

IPOB further cited provisions of its Code of Conduct which, it said, vests the power of appointment, suspension and dismissal of principal officers exclusively in the Supreme Leader, except where expressly delegated.

The group insisted that once a dissolution is announced, affected officers cease to hold any constitutional authority within the movement.

“The moment the dissolution of the 3rd Administration was announced, its tenure came to an end,” it stated, adding that any continued claim to office is “outside the authority of IPOB.”

The organisation stressed that its structure is governed strictly by rules and constitutional order, not personal interests or political considerations.

It also noted that appointments within IPOB are temporary, performance-based, and do not confer ownership of office on any individual.

IPOB dismissed claims suggesting that members of the dissolved administration had any permanent entitlement to their positions, describing such assumptions as inconsistent with its constitution.

The group confirmed the constitution of a new 4th Administration of the Directorate of State, headed by Mazi Chris Nwaọgụ, urging all structures of the organisation worldwide to recognise and cooperate with it.

It warned that any individual or group operating under the dissolved administration would be acting outside the constitution of IPOB and liable to disciplinary action.

Reaffirming its internal discipline, the group stated that loyalty to its constitution and leadership remains non-negotiable.

“Discipline is not negotiable. Loyalty to the Constitution of IPOB is not negotiable. Loyalty to the Supreme Leader is not negotiable,” the statement added.

The post IPOB backs Nnamdi Kanu, upholds DOS dissolution appeared first on Vanguard News.

Read More