270
By Tracy Moses
The long-running detention of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has once again stirred political and legal debate, as the pro-Biafran movement accused South-East leaders of undermining the rule of law by pleading with President Bola Tinubu for his release.
IPOB therefore urged the political leaders from South-East to desist from pleading with the president for the release of its detained leader, and instead press for his immediate and unconditional freedom based on legal and constitutional grounds.
The pro-Biafran organisation described as “embarrassing” and “demeaning” the repeated visits and appeals by some Igbo leaders to the Presidency over Kanu’s fate, accusing them of portraying the Biafran cause as one that depends on presidential benevolence rather than the rule of law.
Kanu, who was intercepted in Kenya on June 27, 2021, and forcibly brought to Nigeria under circumstances widely condemned as a violation of international law, has remained in the custody of the Department of State Services despite multiple court decisions in his favour.
The Court of Appeal, in an October 13, 2022, judgment, discharged him, declaring that no Nigerian court has jurisdiction to try him due to the illegality of his rendition.
However, the Supreme Court, in December 2023, set aside the appellate court’s ruling and ordered that the trial be resumed, a decision IPOB insists is unconstitutional and cannot override the fundamental protections against double jeopardy enshrined in Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution.
In a statement issued on Tuesday by its spokesman, Emma Powerful, IPOB singled out former Lagos State lawmaker Jude Idimogu for criticism after he reportedly urged President Tinubu to free Kanu as a political gesture that could revive the South-East economy and improve the ruling APC’s electoral prospects in 2027.
According to Powerful, such appeals are self-serving, opportunistic, and insulting to the intelligence of the Biafran people.
“We completely reject the shameful display by some Igbo personalities, including Jude Idimogu, who grovel before President Tinubu seeking a ‘pardon’ or ‘release’ for our leader,” the statement read.
“This portrays Kanu as a criminal in need of mercy, when in fact he is a prisoner of conscience, unlawfully abducted in clear breach of Kenya’s sovereignty, Nigeria’s Extradition Act, and international treaties like the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.”
IPOB argued that both Kenyan and Nigerian courts have acknowledged the illegality of Kanu’s rendition, with the appellate court’s discharge standing as a final acquittal under Nigerian law, irrevocable unless explicitly stated to be “without prejudice,” which it was not.
The group further maintained that the terrorism charges against Kanu were based on repealed legislation, the Terrorism Prevention Act of 2011/2013, which, under the Interpretation Act, cannot be revived without a savings clause. The ongoing trial before Justice Omotosho, which began afresh on March 29, 2025, was therefore described as “void ab initio” for lack of jurisdiction.
“Begging Tinubu reinforces dictatorship and sends the dangerous message that executive whims are above judicial authority,” IPOB warned. “It suggests Kanu is guilty when the law has already cleared him. Those engaging in such acts of supplication will be seen as accomplices in oppression.”
The group called for a unified demand, rather than requests for Kanu’s release, urging Biafrans, human rights advocates, and the international community to put pressure on the Nigerian government to comply with court orders.
“Failure to free Kanu shows open contempt for justice and accelerates the collapse of this artificial entity called Nigeria. We will not stand idly by while our leader is subjected to an illegitimate trial. Mobilisation, protests, legal actions, and global advocacy will continue until he is freed,” the statement concluded.