The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has accused the United Igbo Political Congress (UIPC) of attempting to defend what it described as a flawed judgment against its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, alleging that all six major terrorism counts used in his conviction were based on a repealed law.
In an official press statement dated October 28, 2026, and signed by its Media Officer, Rev. Chimezie Ọchụlọ, the IPOB Homeland, under the leadership of Kanu, criticised a statement released by the UIPC on October 27, 2026, and signed by High Chief Major (Dr.) C.O.C. Uzor (Rtd.).
IPOB described the UIPC statement as misleading and accused the organisation of shielding what it called judicial misconduct rather than addressing the legal questions surrounding Kanu’s conviction.
The group maintained that the six terrorism counts against Kanu were entered under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which it said was repealed following the enactment of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
According to IPOB, the alleged use of the repealed legislation raises serious constitutional questions about the validity of the conviction.
IPOB Challenges Legal Basis of Kanu’s Conviction
The group faulted the UIPC’s position that determining whether Justice James Omotosho violated Section 36(12) of the Nigerian Constitution was a matter for a competent court, particularly the Court of Appeal.
IPOB argued that the issue could be examined by reviewing the judgment delivered on November 20, 2025, which it alleged relied on the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 for all six major terrorism counts against Kanu.
The organisation further argued that the 2022 Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act replaced the earlier legislation, insisting that a person cannot lawfully be convicted under a statute that is no longer in force.
It also alleged that Justice Omotosho’s judgment contained a contradiction because, according to IPOB, the judge acknowledged the legal implications of repealed legislation but proceeded to convict Kanu.
The group maintained that the matter should not be dismissed as a technical legal issue requiring only appellate interpretation.
Group Alleges Delay in Kanu’s Appeal
IPOB also accused the relevant judicial authorities of delaying the hearing of Kanu’s appeal.
According to the statement, Kanu filed his appeal on February 4, 2026, while the appeal documents were served on the government on June 5, 2026.
The organisation alleged that the government had yet to file a response and that the court registry had failed to make the case file available or assign a hearing date.
IPOB further stated that lawyers and members of Kanu’s family sent protest letters on August 18, 2026, to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the head of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Registrar, seeking intervention to ensure that a hearing date was fixed.
The group claimed that the letters received no response.
It contrasted the alleged delay with what it described as the speed with which the Court of Appeal had previously acted in proceedings concerning Kanu’s release after he was discharged by the court.
IPOB questioned why, in its view, similar urgency had not been demonstrated in handling the current appeal.
The organisation accused the UIPC of overlooking these allegations while advocating respect for due process, fair hearing and speedy trial.
IPOB Questions UIPC’s Disclaimer
The statement also criticised the disclaimer at the end of the UIPC’s October 27 release, which reportedly stated that the organisation’s press statement should not be regarded as a legal opinion on court cases.
IPOB described the disclaimer as an attempt to avoid taking a firm position on the issues surrounding Kanu’s conviction.
The group argued that an organisation claiming to represent the interests of the Igbo people should be willing to address what it considers serious questions about the legality of a judgment and the circumstances surrounding the appeal.
It accused the UIPC of using cautious language to avoid confronting the allegations directly.
IPOB Calls for Public Scrutiny
In its concluding remarks, IPOB urged the public to reject what it described as misleading narratives surrounding the case.
The organisation reiterated its position that a repealed law could not provide a valid basis for sustaining a conviction on the six terrorism counts.
It also alleged that the continued failure to schedule a hearing for Kanu’s appeal was evidence of a deliberate effort to obstruct the legal process.
IPOB insisted that no political statement or public relations campaign could resolve the questions it had raised about the legislation allegedly relied upon in the conviction.
The statement was issued by Rev. Chimezie Ọchụlọ, Media Officer, Office of the Biafraland Coordinator, IPOB.
