The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has said that the Federal Government’s cross-appeal in the case of its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has fundamentally weakened the legal foundation of his conviction and raised serious questions about the jurisdiction of the trial court.
A statement issued by the group’s spokesperson, Emma Powerful, and made available to Tribune Online, argued that the appeal process has gone beyond the fate of Kanu alone and now places the credibility of the Nigerian judiciary under scrutiny.
“The global family of the Indigenous People of Biafra wishes to draw the attention of all reasonable Nigerians, the international community, members of the diplomatic corps, legal practitioners, human rights organisations, and all defenders of constitutional government to a reality that can no longer be hidden,” the statement said.
IPOB said the recent cross-appeal filed by the Federal Government, in which it allegedly conceded that the trial court acted without jurisdiction in imposing a life sentence instead of a death penalty, had “changed everything” about the case.
“The implication is simple. Jurisdiction is not divisible. Jurisdiction is not a buffet. Jurisdiction is a continuum,” the group said.
It argued that if the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the sentencing stage, then the entire conviction should be considered invalid.
“The conviction and sentence are juridically inseparable. One cannot survive without the other,” IPOB stated.
The group further claimed that the Court of Appeal would be forced to either reject or reconcile what it described as contradictions in the Federal Government’s position.
“Any attempt by the Court of Appeal to affirm the conviction while simultaneously accepting the Federal Government’s admission regarding jurisdiction would require the creation of an entirely new species of criminal jurisprudence unknown to Nigeria,” the statement added.
IPOB also outlined what it described as multiple alleged defects in the trial proceedings, including claims of reliance on repealed laws, denial of a fair hearing, failure to disclose applicable statutes, and withholding of evidence.
According to the group, these issues, taken together, make the conviction “legally unsustainable.”
“It would have to explain how a conviction can stand when the trial judge himself acknowledged that without a written law there can be no conviction,” the statement said.
IPOB warned that the implications of the appeal could extend beyond Kanu’s case and affect future criminal prosecutions in Nigeria.
“Every future criminal defendant would be entitled to ask whether jurisdiction still matter, whether a fair hearing still matters, whether constitutional supremacy still matters,” it said.
The group called for international attention to the case, insisting that the outcome would have lasting consequences for Nigeria’s legal system.
“The Court of Appeal is no longer deciding merely whether Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu should be convicted. It is deciding whether long-established principles of Nigerian criminal law still mean what they s
ay,” the statement concluded.
