By Cross Udo, Abuja
A member of the legal team defending the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, Onyedikachi Ifedi, has accused the Federal Government of relying on propaganda and obsolete laws to justify Kanu’s continued detention, insisting that there is no legal basis for his trial.
In a statement titled “The Real Theatre Is in Abuja, Not IPOB: A Legal Demolition of the ‘Theatrical Search for Nnamdi Kanu’s Acquittal’ Propaganda”, Ifedi dismissed a recent article portraying IPOB’s pursuit of justice as “political theatre,” saying it was government-sponsored disinformation designed to mislead the public.
The lawyer argued that the abduction of Kanu from Kenya in June 2021 amounted to extraordinary rendition, a violation of both Nigerian and international law.
He cited the Court of Appeal judgment in FRN v. Kanu (CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022), which nullified the proceedings against Kanu because his rendition violated his fundamental rights.
“Instead of respecting this binding judgment, the Supreme Court in December 2023 somersaulted by remitting a case that had already been nullified. That, dear reader, is the real theatre,” he said.
Ifedi also faulted the government for prosecuting Kanu under the repealed Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, despite the enactment of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
“Every count predicated on the 2013 law is a legal corpse. Yet the judiciary continues to entertain it. That is theatre of the absurd,” he declared, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in FRN v. Ifegwu (2003), which held that offences created under a repealed law die a “natural death.”
He further stressed that no evidence of violence had been personally linked to Kanu.
“No victim. No weapon. No violent act was attributed to him; at best, his speeches and broadcasts were constitutionally protected under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 9 of the African Charter. Criminalising speech is dictatorship dressed as law,” he argued, referencing Nwankwo v. State (1983).
Ifedi maintained that appellate discharge already amounts to acquittal in law, citing Abacha v. State (2002), Ezeze v. State (2004), and Oladipo v. State (2013). He warned that any attempt to redefine such rulings could expose Kanu to “double jeopardy,” prohibited under Section 36(9) of the Constitution.
He concluded that the real theatrics were in Abuja’s handling of the case: “A Supreme Court upholding a repealed law, a prosecution without evidence of violence, a government guilty of extraordinary rendition, and faceless propaganda outlets pretending to defend the law.
“IPoB is not begging for acquittal; IPoB is demanding justice under the Constitution and international law. History, like law, is on IPoB’s side.”
