IPOB Accuses Nigerian Judiciary of ‘Judicial Banditry’ Over Nnamdi Kanu Conviction

• IPOB has accused the Nigerian judiciary of violating constitutional provisions in Nnamdi Kanu’s conviction, questioning the legal basis of the judgment and calling for his appeal to be heard.

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has accused the Nigerian judiciary of violating constitutional provisions in the conviction of its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, describing the development as evidence of what it called “judicial banditry.”

IPOB made the allegations in a press statement dated September 28, 2026, signed by its spokesperson and Media and Publicity Secretary, Comrade Emma Powerful.

The group alleged that the Nigerian judicial system had deteriorated from an institution guided by constitutional principles into what it described as a tool of executive pressure.

IPOB also invoked Nigeria’s First Republic political history, recalling the relationship between former Eastern Region Premier, Dr Michael Okpara, and former Western Region Premier, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, as an example of cross-regional political solidarity.

According to the group, the historic “Handshake Across the Niger” had been undermined by what it described as the actions of political and judicial actors who allegedly placed executive interests above the rule of law.

The statement particularly focused on the November 20, 2025 proceedings before Justice James Omotosho, alleging that the judge convicted Kanu under legislation that IPOB claims had already been repealed.

IPOB cited Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence is defined and its penalty prescribed in written law.

The group alleged that Justice Omotosho had stated in court on November 4, 2025, that “No written law, no conviction,” but subsequently convicted Kanu under provisions of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011/2013 and the Customs and Excise Management Act.

IPOB argued that the repeal of the legislation meant the provisions could no longer validly form the basis of a criminal conviction. It further argued that the transition to the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 should have been applied in accordance with the relevant provisions of the newer legislation.

The group maintained that a savings provision could not, in its interpretation, create a new criminal offence or replace the constitutional requirement for an offence to be established under a valid written law.

IPOB also accused Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, and Justice Omotosho of facilitating what it called “executive subversion” of the judiciary.

The organisation compared the situation with the use of military tribunals during the administration of former military Head of State, General Sani Abacha, alleging that the present administration was instead using the regular judiciary to achieve similar objectives.

The allegations were also linked by IPOB to what it described as a growing loss of confidence in Nigeria’s judicial system.

The group cited judicial authorities, including State v. Egigia and IGP v. Ogundimu, which it said support the principle that proceedings conducted under repealed laws may be rendered invalid.

IPOB further urged the Court of Appeal to hear Kanu’s appeal without what it described as further executive delay.

The group said the appellate court should determine what “living written law” defined the alleged offences at the time of Kanu’s conviction and, according to its position, quash the conviction if no such law existed.

IPOB also called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to examine Justice Omotosho’s conduct, particularly over the judge’s statements concerning the constitutional requirement for written law and the status of the legislation relied upon in the case.

The organisation recalled the October 13, 2022 judgment of the Court of Appeal, led by Justice Oladotun Adefope-Okojie, which discharged Kanu in the terrorism case.

IPOB described that judgment as a landmark decision and argued that a lower court could not constitutionally override it.

The group concluded its statement with a renewed demand for Kanu’s release, declaring: “Show us the law or release Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.”

The statement was signed by Emma Powerful on behalf of IPOB.