The battle over the fate of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has once again ignited sharp debate, as his lawyer accused the Federal Government of “clutching at propaganda and dead laws” while ignoring binding judicial pronouncements.
Onyedikachi Ifedi, a member of Kanu’s defence team, in a strongly worded statement, argued that the government has no lawful basis to continue holding the separatist leader, describing the Supreme Court’s refusal to give effect to the Court of Appeal’s 2022 judgment — which voided Kanu’s extraordinary rendition from Kenya — as “theatrics of the highest order.”
“The Nigerian government abducted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu in June 2021 in a classic case of extraordinary rendition — an act prohibited under both domestic and international law,” Ifedi said. “Instead of respecting the Court of Appeal’s decision nullifying the proceedings, the Supreme Court somersaulted and revived a case that was already dead. That is the real theatre.”
Central to his argument is the claim that Kanu is being tried under a repealed law — the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 — which was replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022. “Every count predicated on the old law is a legal corpse,” he said, invoking past Supreme Court precedents to argue that offences created under repealed statutes cannot survive repeal.
Beyond statutes and judgments, Ifedi underscored what he sees as the absence of a substantive case against his client. “No victim. No weapon. No violent act was ever attributed to Kanu personally. At best, there are speeches and broadcasts, which fall squarely within constitutional protections under Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 9 of the African Charter,” he said.
He also faulted what he called a “sustained propaganda campaign” designed to frame IPOB’s legal pursuit as a desperate plea for acquittal. “Theatrics are not in IPOB’s demand for justice,” he declared. “Theatrics are in a government prosecuting under repealed laws, a judiciary contradicting itself, and faceless propaganda outlets seeking to distract the public from the real issues.”
The intervention comes against the backdrop of renewed agitation for Kanu’s release, both at home and abroad, amid warnings by rights groups that his prolonged detention risks deepening alienation in the South-East and eroding public confidence in Nigeria’s justice system.
