The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has dismissed the Federal High Court ruling that handed its detained leader, Nnamdi Kanu, a life sentence on seven terrorism-related charges, describing the verdict as unlawful and politically motivated.

In a statement issued on Friday by its spokesperson, Emma Powerful, the group insisted that Kanu “committed no offence recognized by Nigerian law,”arguing that all allegations against him stem from his campaign for self-determination — a right it says is protected under international human-rights conventions.

Powerful accused Justice James Omotosho, who delivered the judgment on Thursday in Abuja, of violating constitutional provisions, particularly Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which forbids convicting anyone for an act not explicitly defined as a crime in a written law.

According to IPOB, no evidence linking Kanu to violence or weapon possession was ever tendered before any court.

“No gun, grenade, GPMG, explosive, or attack plan was found on Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. No civilian or military witness ever testified that he committed any offence under Nigerian or international law,” the statement said.

The group argued that the federal government has attempted to criminalise the concept of self-determination — a right guaranteed under Article 20 of the African Charter as well as Article 1 of the ICCPR and ICESCR.

“Self-determination is a legal right, not a criminal act. Agitation is not terrorism, and calling for a referendum cannot be equated to violence,” IPOB maintained.

The organisation further noted that insecurity in the South-East escalated during Kanu’s prolonged detention by the DSS, making it illogical, they argued, for authorities to blame him for incidents that occurred while he was in custody.

IPOB also accused Nigerian security agencies of previous killings of its members in places such as Nkpor, Aba, Onitsha, and Emene, alleging that no officer involved in those operations had been prosecuted.

“The state has refused to account for the massacres of IPOB family members, yet the same system now turns around to convict the victims,” Powerful stated.

The group described the verdict as “unconstitutional,” claiming that Justice Omotosho relied on repealed legal provisions to sentence Kanu. IPOB questioned the legal basis for the ruling:

“What written law did you rely on to convict Mazi Nnamdi Kanu? Is that law still in force? If it has been repealed, how can it satisfy Section 36(12)? Why were binding Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions ignored?”

Also Read: CBN Exposes Unauthorised Microfinance Bank Operating in Lagos, Abuja, Kaduna, Kano

IPOB said it plans to issue a more detailed rebuttal outlining what it called “defects, inconsistencies, and illegalities” in the judgment. It added that the group will intensify its engagement with international bodies regarding what it describes as ongoing judicial and human-rights violations in Nigeria.

Reaffirming its long-standing position, IPOB called once again for a UN-supervised referendum on the future of Biafra.

Justice Omotosho had ruled that Kanu’s broadcasts on Radio Biafra and his directives on sit-at-home orders constituted acts of terrorism, and that attacks linked to the Eastern Security Network supported the prosecution’s case. The judgment was delivered in Kanu’s absence after he was removed from the courtroom for alleged unruly behaviour.

While the Federal Government maintains that Kanu’s activities threaten national security, the IPOB leader’s legal team has vowed to challenge the ruling at the appellate court.