The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has challenged the Nigerian government’s prosecution of its detained leader, Nnamdi Kanu, insisting there is no case against him.
The group in a statement issued by its Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful, on Wednesday urged Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court to uphold the principles of law over political sentiment.
Powerful warns against what it calls an “attempt to substitute sentiment for law,” and insists that the government has failed to establish a prima facie case against Kanu in the ongoing terrorism and incitement charges.
Quoting Justice Binta Nyako, who previously stated that “no government can permanently rely on intimidation in place of evidence,” Powerful declared, “Today, we remind His Lordship Justice James Omotosho that no court can substitute sentiment for law.”
He listed eight legal questions which he said must be answered in the affirmative before the court can find that there is a case for Kanu to answer.
Failure to do so, Powerful argued, would render the prosecution’s case void.
One of the issues raised is the absence of an investigation report.
He said, “The prosecution has not submitted any investigation report linking Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to the allegations of terrorism, treason, or incitement.”
He argued that a case cannot proceed where the investigative foundation is missing.
He also pointed out reliance on Department of State Services’ testimonies alone, faulting the prosecution’s dependence on testimonies from five DSS officers, whom he described as “institutionally biased” and lacking firsthand evidence.
“This is not evidence; it is theatre,” Powerful said.
In cases involving conspiracy or group intent, Powerful pointed out that the absence of named co-defendants undermines the charge.
“This is legally untenable,” the IPOB spokesperson said.
He added that no person has come forward as a complainant or victim of Kanu’s alleged incitement or actions.
“Who was incited? Who is the injured party?” Powerful asked.
He insisted that mere leadership of a proscribed group, especially one banned via ex parte order, does not establish criminal guilt, arguing that the government must prove a specific criminal act.
Powerful noted that “freedom of expression includes criticism of the government,” and that no evidence has been presented linking any broadcast by Kanu to specific violent outcomes or unlawful acts.
He emphasised that when the foundational elements of a charge collapse, the court is duty-bound to discharge the accused.
Powerful described the ex parte proscription of IPOB as “administrative, not judicial,” and insisted it cannot be used to infer guilt.
He reminded the court that due process cannot be bypassed for the sake of expediency.
“Unless Justice Omotosho wishes to join those who have desecrated Nigeria’s judiciary, he must answer these questions honestly, lawfully, and courageously,” he stated.
Powerful warned that the trial is not only a legal test but a national moral reckoning, stating, “If the prosecution is relying on no investigation report, only DSS witnesses without firsthand knowledge, no identified victims, no named collaborators, no jurisdiction over the alleged broadcasts, and a dubious ex parte proscription, then there is no case to answer.”
About the Author
