The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has issued a fiery condemnation of a recent Federal High Court ruling in the ongoing terrorism trial of its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, accusing Justice James Omotosho of bias and shifting the burden of proof onto the accused. In a press release dated September 27, 2025, IPOB spokesperson Comrade Emma Powerful decried the judge’s remark that Kanu “will need to explain certain things,” labeling it a blatant violation of Nigerian constitutional protections and a tool for government persecution.

 

The Controversial Ruling

The statement comes in response to Justice Omotosho’s decision on September 26, 2025, where he dismissed Kanu’s no-case submission, ruling that the prosecution—led by the Department of State Services (DSS)—had established a prima facie case sufficient to require the IPOB leader to open his defense.

During the session, Omotosho reportedly stated, “It would be in the best interests of Kanu to be given the opportunity to clear some issues raised against him in the terrorism charges,” which IPOB interpreted as compelling Kanu to testify against himself.

Taste the Goodness: EL Blends All-Natural Cold-Pressed Juices

Kanu, detained since June 2021 after a dramatic rendition from Kenya, faces seven counts of terrorism, treasonable felony, and incitement related to IPOB’s separatist activities in southeastern Nigeria. The trial, adjourned to October 8, 2025, for a Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) panel to assess Kanu’s health claims, has been mired in controversy, including Supreme Court interventions in 2022 that quashed charges on a repealed law but remanded the case for retrial.

 

IPOB’s Scathing Rebuttal

Powerful’s release, issued from the Office of the Spokesperson/Media and Publicity Secretary for IPOB, directly challenged Omotosho: “Explain certain things like what? Does the judge not know that Section 36(11) of the Nigerian Constitution forbids compelling any defendant to testify against himself? Does the judge not understand that the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution, not on the accused?”

The group accused the court of building its case on “contradictory witnesses, absence of investigation reports, and reliance on a repealed law,” arguing that Omotosho’s comments expose Abuja’s judiciary as prioritizing government agendas over justice. “This remark exposes the reality of Abuja courts: their first duty is not to justice, but to the government. By demanding that our Leader ‘explain,’ Justice Omotosho is not applying the law; he is aiding persecution,” Powerful wrote.

IPOB reiterated Kanu’s innocence, framing his “only crime” as advocating Biafran self-determination, and called on the international community to witness the “charade.” The statement affirmed IPOB’s alignment with “truth and international law,” vowing no surrender.

 

Legal and Human Rights Backlash

Human rights lawyer Christopher Chidera echoed IPOB’s concerns on September 27, urging the Court of Appeal to review Omotosho’s ruling for “glaring inconsistencies” and violations of constitutional rights against self-incrimination.

Chidera criticized the judge for fixating on the charge sheet while ignoring collapsed prosecution evidence under cross-examination, calling it a “perversion of justice.”

 

Kanu’s legal team, led by former Attorney-General Kanu G. Agabi (SAN), has signaled an appeal, with the trial’s next phase set for October 8, when the NMA panel—ordered by Omotosho to include 8-10 specialists from cardiology, pulmonology, urology, and neurology—will report on Kanu’s fitness to stand trial.

The DSS opposed Kanu’s earlier transfer to the National Hospital, citing security risks, but the court mandated the independent evaluation.

 

Amnesty International and the U.S. State Department, which in 2023 called for Kanu’s release on human rights grounds, have yet to comment on the latest ruling, though global observers monitor the case closely amid Nigeria’s southeastern insecurity.

 

Broader Context and Reactions

Kanu’s trial, ongoing since 2021, has fueled Biafran agitation, with IPOB-linked attacks in the southeast claiming over 200 lives in 2025 (per SBM Intelligence). Supporters view the ruling as politically motivated, while government spokespersons defend it as upholding the rule of law. On X, #FreeNnamdiKanu trended with 12,000 mentions on September 27, blending solidarity posts like “Justice delayed is justice denied” from @BiafraVoice with counterarguments from @NigeriaUnity: “Terrorism charges aren’t persecution—they’re accountability.”

Powerful’s release, circulated via IPOB channels, has amplified calls for international intervention, drawing parallels to past UN working group opinions deeming Kanu’s rendition unlawful.

 

The ruling escalates tensions in Nigeria’s fragile federation, where separatist sentiments in the southeast persist amid economic marginalization claims. With Kanu—detained without bail for over four years—symbolizing Biafran resistance, Omotosho’s order to defend could prolong the saga, testing judicial independence and human rights norms.

As the October 8 hearing looms, the trial remains a flashpoint for Nigeria’s unity debates, with global eyes on whether justice prevails over politics. For IPOB, the fight for Biafra endures.