The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has intensified its legal and political campaign for the release of its detained leader, Nnamdi Kanu, urging the Court of Appeal to dismiss the Federal Government’s cross-appeal and uphold Kanu’s appeal in its entirety.
In a statement issued on Sunday by IPOB’s spokesperson, Emma Powerful, the group argued that the Federal Government’s own Notice of Cross-Appeal against the judgment delivered by Justice J.K. Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on November 20, 2025, amounts to an admission that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in crucial aspects of the case, particularly the sentencing phase.
According to IPOB, the Federal Government’s position allegedly acknowledges that the trial court acted outside its powers when it imposed life imprisonment on certain counts against Kanu. The group maintained that such an admission strikes at the very foundation of the prosecution’s case and renders the sentencing exercise legally invalid.
IPOB insisted that jurisdiction cannot be fragmented between conviction and sentencing, arguing that a court that lacks jurisdiction to sentence an accused person cannot validly sustain the conviction arising from the same proceedings.
The group relied on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962), which established that any proceedings conducted without jurisdiction are null and void regardless of how meticulously they may have been carried out.
“Mazi Nnamdi Kanu accepts this premise in toto. If the trial court acted without jurisdiction at the sentencing phase, then the entire sentencing exercise is a nullity ab initio,” the statement declared.
IPOB further argued that the Court of Appeal lacks the authority to revive or cure a jurisdictional defect that has allegedly been admitted by the prosecution itself, maintaining that the appellate court cannot breathe life into proceedings that are fundamentally defective.
The separatist group also accused the Federal Government of taking contradictory positions by challenging aspects of the sentencing process while simultaneously seeking a harsher punishment against Kanu.
According to IPOB, the prosecution cannot question the legality of part of the proceedings and still rely on the same proceedings as a basis for seeking more severe penalties.
The group alleged that the cross-appeal was politically motivated and designed to pressure Kanu into abandoning his agitation for the restoration of Biafra. It, however, insisted that its leader would not succumb to what it described as intimidation and political blackmail.
IPOB specifically mentioned the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), and senior lawyer Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), alleging that the cross-appeal was part of a broader effort to weaken the Biafra movement.
Describing the Federal Government’s filing as a major setback for the prosecution, IPOB claimed the cross-appeal had inadvertently strengthened Kanu’s legal position by exposing what it termed fatal weaknesses in the government’s case.
The organisation maintained that the alleged jurisdictional defect had shattered the legal foundation of the conviction and sentencing, arguing that the entire prosecution now stands on uncertain ground.
Consequently, IPOB called on the Court of Appeal to dismiss the Federal Government’s cross-appeal and allow Kanu’s appeal, which it said should culminate in his immediate and unconditional release.
The group concluded by expressing confidence that the Biafra struggle would survive regardless of the outcome of the legal battle, insisting that no amount of judicial pressure or political intimidation could extinguish the aspirations of its supporters.
As legal fireworks continue around one of Nigeria’s most controversial and closely watched criminal cases, attention now shifts to the Court of Appeal, where both parties are expected to fiercely contest the implications of the Federal Government’s cross-appeal and the future of Nnamdi Kanu’s conviction.