“No named victims, no forensic evidence, and no direct testimony have been presented to link Kanu to terrorism or incitement,” were part of the arguments with which the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), dismissed the case raised against Nnamdi Kanu, its leader, on Monday.
The group in a statement by Onyekachi Ifedi, a lawyer and Directorate of Legal Affairs, Research, and Global Communications, maintained that the case was fraught with “deliberate misinformation, legal inconsistencies, and media distortions, ” adding that no credible case was had been established despite over four years of prosecution and multiple amendments to the charges.
Arguing that the prosecution was merely relying on laws that had since been repealed, including the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2013 and the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA), which it claims no longer form a valid legal basis for the charges, the group, for instance, stated that the charge that Kanu illegally imported a transmitter in 2015 to promote terrorism, was a farce.
It argued that no customs documents or proof of concealment were ever submitted in court, and that the charge sheet was procedurally flawed, lacking proper endorsement when amended.
Referencing to a 2017 ruling by Justice Binta Nyako, to the effect that IPOB was not an unlawful society, which had never been overturned, IPOB, argued that the subsequent proscription of the body by the FG, was obtained ex parte, without the group’s representation, a move that violated both Nigerian constitutional guarantees and international legal standards.
IPOB also rejected efforts to link it or Kanu to the EndSARS protests, calling such claims “false and defamatory,” citing findings from the Lagos State Judicial Panel of Inquiry, which pointed fingers at Nigerian security forces and not IPOB, for the violence and fatalities that occurred during the protests.
Reiterating its position that Kanu was “extraordinary renditioned” from Kenya to Nigeria in 2021, the group maintained that the process was not only an illegal abduction, but one that violated both domestic and international law.
Citing a similar case in which the Supreme Court, discharged a northern Nigerian man abducted from the Republic of Niger, solely on the grounds that his extradition was illegal, the group maintained that Justice Garba Mohammed, who ruled that Kanu could still be tried despite the illegality of his rendition, owed the Nigerian public and international community an explanation.
IPOB, while calling on the Nigerian government to respect Kanu’s rights, while maintaining due process in the matter, queried: “Is there one law for the Sahel North and another for the South-East?”
While urging the government to end the reliance on repealed laws and politically motivated prosecutions, and cease the media trial and propaganda tactics against the IPOB leader, specifically enjoined journalists, civil society, and the international community to scrutinise the case more closely and advocate for “justice rooted in truth and the rule of law.”