Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial: IPOB Accuses Court of Ethnic Loyalty and Executive Manipulation

 Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial: IPOB Accuses Court of Ethnic Loyalty and Executive Manipulation  The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), under the lea...

 Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial: IPOB Accuses Court of Ethnic Loyalty and Executive Manipulation 

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), under the leadership of its detained founder Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, issued a blistering press statement denouncing the ongoing trial of Kanu at the Federal High Court in Abuja. Titled “The Drama Continues in Abuja on 8 October: A Trial Built on Lies, Illegality, and Ethnic Bias,” the statement frames the legal proceedings as a politically orchestrated farce, accusing Nigeria’s executive, judiciary, and prosecution of corruption, ethnic partisanship, and procedural violations. The movement called on the international community to intervene, asserting that Kanu’s detention is a violation of his inalienable right to demand self-determination for the Biafran people.

IPOB’s statement comes as Kanu’s trial, which resumed on October 8, was adjourned to October 16, 2025, pending a medical report from the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) assessing his fitness to stand trial. The movement, has consistently maintained that Kanu’s only “crime” is advocating for Biafran independence, a right enshrined in international law IPOB stated.

The statement alleges that the trial is a “political drama scripted in Aso Rock” and directed by the Attorney-General, with Justice James Omotosho playing a biased role to protect “Yoruba interests” aligned with the presidency. It accuses the judiciary of being a “lapdog” to the executive, lacking honor and fairness. IPOB further claims that the trial operates under the repealed Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act of 2013, which was replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act of 2022, rendering the legal basis for the charges invalid.

IPOB’s grievances are rooted in several legal and procedural issues. The statement highlights the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling, delivered by Justice Emmanuel Agim, which declared the revocation of Kanu’s 2017 bail by Justice Binta Nyako as illegal. Despite this, Kanu remains detained by the Department of State Services (DSS), and his bail application lingers at the Court of Appeal, which IPOB attributes to presidential interference. The movement also criticizes the use of an ex parte order obtained without an adversarial hearing for Kanu’s 2021 arrest, labeling it a “black-market” maneuver that violates Nigerian and international jurisprudence.

The statement amplifies Nigeria’s ethnic fault lines, accusing former judge Nyako of shielding “Fulani interests” and Omotosho of defending “Yoruba interests.” These claims reflect IPOB’s broader narrative of systemic marginalization of the Igbo ethnic group, predominant in Nigeria’s Southeast, by a corrupt oligarchy dominated by other ethnic groups. The trial’s delays spanning over four years lend credence to perceptions of judicial dysfunction.

Kanu’s frail appearance in court on October 8, coupled with reports of health issues like potassium depletion and sleep apnea, has intensified concerns among supporters. IPOB’s statement was followed by another from Kanu’s spouse, Uchechi Okwu-Kanu, condemning the NMA for allegedly sharing Kanu’s medical records with the Attorney-General, breaching confidentiality. The movement has called for an independent medical examination by international bodies like the African Union (AU) or ECOWAS, echoing demands from activists like Omoyele Sowore, who has urged Southeast leaders like Peter Obi and Alex Otti to push for Kanu’s release.

IPOB’s appeal to the United Nations, AU, ECOWAS, and “lovers of justice worldwide” underscores its strategy to internationalize the issue. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention previously called for Kanu’s release in 2022, citing his rendition as unlawful, but no significant intervention has followed as of 2025.

The prolonged detention and health concerns risk escalating tensions in the Southeast, where Biafran agitation has fueled unrest. IPOB’s statement, with its fiery rhetoric and accusations of “tyranny wearing judicial robes,” aims to mobilize its base and sustain global visibility for the cause.

The legal saga, marked by repealed laws, disputed ex parte orders, and judicial recusals (Nyako stepped down in 2024 after bias allegations), highlights deeper challenges in Nigeria’s judicial system, the trial’s procedural flaws acknowledged even by the Supreme Court undermine public trust in the rule of law. 

However, without addressing the underlying grievances of marginalization, the Biafran question will likely persist, fueling further unrest. As IPOB remains “resolute, peaceful, and unbowed,” the October 8 statement serves as both a rallying cry and a stark reminder of Nigeria’s unresolved ethnic and political tensions. The world, as IPOB urges, will be watching the next court date on October 16.

Family Writers Press International.