Igbo Leaders Reject Kanu’s Life Sentence, Cite Legal Flaws

The Igbo community has roundly condemned the life imprisonment sentence handed down to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), with prominent voices across the region describing the judgment as fundamentally flawed and politically motivated.

Justice James Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court delivered the verdict, sparking immediate backlash from Igbo sociocultural organizations, legal experts, and political leaders who argue the trial violated basic principles of justice.

Youth Group Denounces Verdict

The Ohanaeze Youth Council (OYC), the apex sociocultural youth organization representing Igbo people worldwide, led the criticism in a press conference in Abuja on Friday.

Comrade Igboayaka O. Igboayaka, National President of OYC, described the judgment as “a miscarriage of justice” that unfairly labels the entire Igbo community as terrorists.

“The verdict implies that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, IPOB, and Ndigbo are regarded as terrorists,” Igboayaka said. “Kanu is not a terrorist, IPOB is not a terror group, and the Igbo people are not terrorists.”

The youth leader argued that the judgment was designed to silence Igbo voices, noting that numerous individuals who have made inflammatory statements inciting violence have never faced similar prosecution.

“Advocating for self-determination with a microphone does not make one a terrorist,” he added, urging Kanu’s legal team to file an immediate appeal.

APGA Founder Calls for Presidential Intervention

Chief Chekwas Okorie, founder of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), expressed disappointment with the outcome and called on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to intervene.

“I feel sad that after all the legal rigmarole surrounding the matter of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, it has ended with a life sentence,” Okorie said.

He maintained that Kanu’s agitation represents a political movement rooted in the fundamental right to freedom of expression, comparing it to earlier self-determination efforts led by Chief Ralph Uwazurike’s Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB).

Okorie characterized Kanu’s trial as “fundamentally flawed, given the nature of his extraordinary rendition from Kenya,” and urged President Tinubu to exercise presidential clemency to defuse tensions.

“The ball is now in the court of President Tinubu,” he said. “How he responds to this testy moment will determine the direction of various outcomes, one way or the other.”

Lawyers Identify Multiple Legal Deficiencies

A coalition of Igbo lawyers has outlined what they describe as critical legal flaws that invalidate the judgment:

Extraordinary Rendition: The lawyers argue that Kanu’s alleged removal from Kenya violated extradition procedures under Nigerian and international law, rendering the trial null from the outset.

Jurisdictional Issues: Since many alleged offences stemmed from broadcasts made in the United Kingdom, the defence contends Nigerian courts lack territorial jurisdiction.

Denial of Fair Hearing: The legal team says it was not given adequate time to prepare and that the judge failed to rule on key motions,an omission they claim automatically voids the judgment under Nigerian law.

Insufficient Evidence: The prosecution allegedly failed to produce witnesses or documentation linking Kanu’s broadcasts to specific criminal acts or casualties.

Obsolete Legislation: Critics note that Kanu was charged under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013, which they say is no longer in force.

Judicial Overreach: Legal experts accused the judge of introducing allegations, including supposed plans to bomb foreign embassies, that were not part of the original charges.

Disregard for Previous Rulings: The defence pointed to a Court of Appeal judgment that had discharged Kanu and ordered his release, arguing the trial should not have proceeded without first setting aside that ruling.

Prolonged Detention: Kanu’s extended detention was characterized as a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Allegations of Bias: The defence maintains the trial was politically motivated, pointing to disparate treatment of others accused of similar or more serious offences.

Political Hyperbole: Several analysts argued that many of Kanu’s statements constituted political rhetoric rather than genuine incitement to terrorism.

Governor Otti Mobilizes for Release

Abia State Governor Dr. Alex Otti has announced the initiation of efforts to secure Kanu’s release, pledging to work through multiple channels while respecting ongoing legal processes.

“While Mazi Nnamdi Kanu reserves the right to appeal his conviction, I am pleased to inform you that the agreed strategy for securing his freedom has been set in motion and will be sustained until the objective is achieved,” Otti stated.

The governor’s intervention signals growing regional pressure on the federal government to resolve what many in the Southeast view as a politically charged case with potential to inflame ethnic tensions.

As Kanu’s legal team prepares to appeal, the verdict has heightened concerns about the treatment of separatist movements in Nigeria and the application of counterterrorism laws to political activism.

Attempts to reach the Federal Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Attorney General for comment were unsuccessful at press time.