Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has raised concerns about what he calls continuous executive and judicial malpractice against him since his extraordinary rendition in 2021.
In a public letter to Nigerians, Kanu referenced a 2017 ruling by the Federal High Court in Abuja, which stated that IPOB is not an illegal organization. He explained that this ruling followed a criminal proceeding in which both he and the federal government presented their cases. Despite the ruling, Kanu said the government did not appeal. Instead, the former Attorney-General, Abubakar Malami, allegedly worked with late Abba Kyari to proscribe IPOB as a terrorist group in a secret, ex parte proceeding without notifying him or IPOB. Kanu called this act the first sign of collusion between the judiciary and government to deny his rights and endanger millions of IPOB supporters.
He highlighted a Federal High Court ruling from October 26, 2022, which declared his rendition and detention unconstitutional. According to the judgment, the Nigerian government violated his fundamental rights through his arrest and detention in Kenya, subjecting him to physical and mental trauma. The court ordered the government to apologize and compensate him. Kanu emphasized that, in any responsible society, this ruling should have led to his immediate release and constructive dialogue about IPOB’s self-determination cause.
Kanu also referred to the October 13, 2022, Court of Appeal judgment that criticized executive lawlessness and emphasized the judiciary’s role in balancing law and order with protecting individuals from oppressive actions. The court held that Kanu’s abduction and extraordinary rendition from Kenya on June 27, 2021, violated both domestic and international laws. As a result, Nigerian courts lost jurisdiction to hear any charges against him. Despite this clear ruling, the federal government did not release Kanu but instead convened an appellate panel that stayed the judgment, effectively nullifying it. Kanu questioned how the government could request a stay of a judgment it had already violated, citing numerous Supreme Court cases holding that those who disobey court orders should not receive judicial relief. He accused the judiciary of selectively ignoring this principle in his case.
Kanu then discussed a December 15, 2023, Supreme Court decision, which sent his case back to the Federal High Court for trial. The Supreme Court also ruled that Kanu’s bail should not have been revoked, highlighting judicial bias in the initial bail revocation. Kanu argued that the High Court should have restored his bail upon resuming his trial, in compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision. However, this did not happen. He claimed the court collaborated with the government to prolong his detention, violating Section 287 of the Nigerian Constitution.
On September 24, 2024, Kanu said he lost confidence in receiving justice from a judge who had sent him to secret police detention without a fair hearing in 2021. The judge also refused his request to be moved to prison to better prepare for trial and declined to restore his bail. Kanu requested the judge’s recusal, which was granted. Yet, instead of reassigning the case to another judge, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court allegedly sent it back to the same recused judge under government influence.
Kanu concluded his letter by clarifying that he does not believe all Nigerian judges are incapable of delivering justice. Instead, he argued that his case is being deliberately shielded from judges committed to impartiality, even if it means ruling against the government. He resolved that if it takes spending the rest of his life in detention to secure a fair trial before a constitutionally empowered court, he is willing to do so. He declared he would not submit to any trial conducted by a judge or court lacking proper jurisdiction, now or ever.
