As the Federal High Court in Abuja prepares to rule on the no-case submission filed by the legal team of detained IPOB leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has issued a detailed public statement outlining key legal concerns it says must be addressed before any further trial can proceed.
The statement, signed by Comrade Emma Powerful, IPOB’s Director of Media and Publicity, was released ahead of the court’s anticipated ruling under the presiding judge, Justice James Omotosho. IPOB urged the court to weigh what it described as “Eight Legal Questions That Must Be Addressed Before Any Further Trial”, referencing Justice Binta Nyako’s earlier comment that, “no government can permanently rely on intimidation in place of evidence.”
The Eight Legal Issues Raised by IPOB
-
Absence of Investigation Report
IPOB questioned the absence of an official investigation report backing the federal government’s allegations against Kanu, noting that such a document is foundational in criminal prosecution. -
Testimonies of Security Officers
The group expressed concern over the prosecution’s reliance on the testimonies of security personnel, arguing that such evidence should be corroborated by neutral witnesses and documentary proof, particularly in high-profile cases. -
Unnamed Collaborators
IPOB challenged the credibility of the alleged conspiracy charges, pointing out that no co-defendants have been identified or charged, which they claim undermines the conspiracy narrative. -
No Identified Victim
The statement observed that no victim or injured party has been publicly named in the case, asserting that this omission weakens the prosecution’s effort to prove that a crime with impact was committed. -
Association Not Proof of Guilt
IPOB emphasized that being associated with a proscribed group does not, on its own, constitute criminal behavior unless specific, individual unlawful acts are proven in court. -
Broadcasts Require Proof of Harm
IPOB stated that public broadcasts by Kanu cannot be criminalized without clear, direct evidence linking those messages to criminal acts or incitement. -
Lack of Supporting Elements
The group argued that the prosecution lacks supporting evidence, witness testimony, and procedural compliance, all of which are essential to establishing a credible case. -
Proscription Not a Conviction
IPOB noted that its proscription by the government was done through an ex parte legal process, which is currently under legal challenge. The group insists that the proscription alone cannot be the legal basis for criminal prosecution.
Call for Judicial Integrity
The group reaffirmed its respect for the judiciary, urging Justice Omotosho to apply strict legal scrutiny in determining whether the prosecution has met the burden of proof required for the trial to proceed.
“We remain confident in the rule of law and the integrity of the Nigerian judiciary. This moment presents a critical opportunity for the courts to reinforce the principle that justice must be based on evidence, not intimidation,” the statement read.
The Federal High Court is expected to issue its decision on the no-case submission in the coming days.
