The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has strongly objected to what it described as a “fraudulent and premeditated” medical report purportedly issued by the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) concerning the health condition of its detained leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
The group, through its Legal Advisory Directorate, issued a detailed legal objection and public advisory dated October 7, 2025, warning that the Federal Government, through the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), plans to tender the controversial report before the Federal High Court in Abuja on October 8, 2025.
According to IPOB, the said report — dated September 22, 2025 — is not only “legally defective” but also “ethically tainted,” having been allegedly prepared before a valid judicial order for an independent medical examination was issued.
Questionable Legitimacy of the Report
In its statement, IPOB contended that the NMA’s report cannot stand legal scrutiny because it was produced before Justice Omotosho’s directive authorizing a medical re-examination of Kanu.
“The report predates the court order and therefore cannot retroactively satisfy the judicial requirement for an independent medical evaluation,” the statement said, citing Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228 and FRN v. Iweka (2013) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1374) 265, which both establish that any act carried out outside judicial authorization is void from inception.
IPOB further argued that the absence of judicial supervision during the process renders the document inadmissible under Section 46(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, which requires all forensic or medical examinations intended for evidentiary use to be conducted under court authority.
“No supervised medical evaluation has taken place since that date, and the authenticity of the document cannot be verified,” the group stated.
Violation of the Evidence Act and Medical Ethics
IPOB also cited Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, which prohibits the admission of documents created in anticipation of litigation or without contemporaneous authorization.
It accused the AGF’s office and the Department of State Services (DSS) of orchestrating the report for tactical use in court, calling it “a pre-emptive fabrication masquerading as medical evidence.”
The group further criticized the NMA for allegedly concealing the report from both Kanu and his legal team, despite assurances from the NMA Vice President on September 23, 2025, that it would be released the same day.
“As of October 7, 2025, neither Mazi Nnamdi Kanu nor his lawyers have received the report,” IPOB said, describing the concealment as a “gross breach” of Section 23(1) of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, which obligates transparency and full patient disclosure.
“To secretly prepare a medical report at the request of a party to litigation, then withhold it from the patient while planning to tender it in court, is both unlawful and immoral,” the statement added.
Alleged Collusion Between the Court, AGF, and NMA
The movement expressed alarm at what it described as “institutional collusion” involving the AGF, the NMA, and sections of the judiciary, warning that such behavior erodes public confidence in Nigeria’s justice system.
“If the court admits this pre-dated, unreleased report, it becomes complicit in executive manipulation and a clear violation of audi alteram partem — the fundamental right of every person to be heard before judgment,” IPOB warned.
It noted that Section 36(6)(b) and (d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) guarantees defendants access to all evidence and the right to confront their accusers rights that are being undermined by the concealment of the NMA report.
Key Questions Raised by IPOB
The IPOB Legal Directorate posed a series of questions demanding public answers:
- Why was the NMA report prepared before the court’s order authorizing the examination?
- Why has the report not been released to the defendant as promised?
- Why did the AGF — a litigant in the case — send the NMA delegation instead of the court?
- Why has the judiciary remained silent in the face of this apparent procedural breach?
“These unanswered questions confirm that what is happening is not a legitimate trial but a politically choreographed persecution disguised as judicial process,” the group declared.
Public Warning and Call for Judicial Integrity
IPOB cautioned that admitting the contested medical report would amount to “judicial endorsement of executive fabrication,” thereby desecrating both the Constitution and the medical profession’s ethical code.
“The courtroom must not be turned into a stage for executive deceit. Justice founded on falsehood is no justice at all,” the statement emphasized.
The movement warned that if the report is tendered in court, it will challenge its admissibility and pursue lawful remedies to expose what it described as “a coordinated attempt to manipulate the legal process.”
Final Position
Summarizing its stance, IPOB reaffirmed that:
- No lawful, court-supervised medical re-examination of Nnamdi Kanu has taken place.
- Any medical report prepared before the court’s directive or withheld from the defence is null and void.
- The defence team will object to the document’s admissibility and seek an independent investigation into the NMA’s involvement.
“Justice cannot be built on deceit. A report concealed from the accused and prepared outside court supervision is a legal nullity,” the group asserted.
It concluded by reaffirming IPOB’s commitment to peaceful and lawful pursuit of justice:
“Let the world bear witness — IPOB stands unshaken, resolute, and firmly anchored in the rule of law in the struggle for truth and justice concerning Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.”
Signed:
Barrister Chukwuma Benson Ihejiofor
For the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)
Legal Advisory Directorate
Dated: October 7, 2025
