KEY POINTS
- IPOB says its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, agrees with an alleged admission by the Nigerian government that his trial court lacked jurisdiction.
- The group argues that the Federal High Court’s conviction and sentencing of Kanu to life imprisonment is therefore invalid.
- IPOB has urged the Court of Appeal to overturn the conviction and order Kanu’s release.
The Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, has claimed that its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, agrees with what it describes as an admission by the Nigerian government that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction when it convicted and sentenced him on terrorism charges.
Kanu was convicted on November 20, 2025, by Justice James Omotosho and sentenced to life imprisonment. He is currently serving his sentence at a correctional facility in Sokoto.
In a statement issued by its spokesperson, Emma Powerful, IPOB said the issue arose during ongoing appeal proceedings at the Court of Appeal, which began on June 5, 2026.
The group alleged that in its cross-appeal, the Federal Government acknowledged that the trial court acted without jurisdiction when it convicted and sentenced Kanu.
According to IPOB, this alleged admission forms the basis of its argument that the entire sentencing process is legally invalid.
The group further stated that Nnamdi Kanu fully accepts this position, describing the alleged admission as a decisive flaw in the prosecution’s case.
Dispute Over Jurisdiction Claim
IPOB argued that a court that lacks jurisdiction cannot lawfully convict or sentence an accused person, insisting that any such judgment is automatically void.
The group maintained that if the sentencing phase was conducted without proper jurisdiction, then the entire outcome of the trial becomes a nullity.
It added that the Federal Government cannot, on one hand, claim the court lacked jurisdiction and, on the other hand, seek to uphold the conviction and sentence.
According to IPOB, such a position creates what it described as a legal contradiction that the Court of Appeal cannot resolve in favour of the prosecution.
The group also criticised officials involved in the prosecution, including the Attorney General of the Federation and senior advocates representing the government, accusing them of attempting to maintain what it called a flawed conviction.
IPOB described the cross-appeal as an attempt to sustain a case it believes has already collapsed due to jurisdictional issues.
It further claimed that no legal argument can repair what it termed a fundamentally defective trial process.