Kanu: FG yet to explain the law under which the Biafra activist is being tried.
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has debunked news reports in a section of the media suggesting that its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has forfeited his right to defence.
Kanu was in court on Friday but declined to enter defence in his trial saying that there is no existing law in Nigeria on which his trial is based. However, the rrial judge, Justice James Omotosho went ahead and fixed November 20, 2025 to deliver his judgment with some media outlets concluding that Kanu has forfeited his defence.
But IPOB in a statement signed by its spokesman, Emma Powerful and made available to the media Friday insisted that Kanu’s refusal to open defence in “a sham trial” did not in any way constitute forfeiture of defence.
“The false claim that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has ‘forfeited his right to defence’” in the ongoing trial before Justice James Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, is a desperate lie meant to mislead the public and cover up an illegal process,” the statement said.
“Let the truth be clear: Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has not forfeited anything. What is happening in court is not a fair trial but a political show. Up till today(Friday), neither Justice Omotosho nor Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, the government’s lead prosecutor, has been able to point to any valid, existing law that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu supposedly broke”.
IPOB said that it “fully supports Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s stand in refusing to legitimize this illegality by entering a defense. The truth is unshakable: no valid law supports this case — none whatsoever”.
According to Biafra sepaeatost group, the silence of FG and its team of prosscutors on the issue of naming the law on which Kanu is being tried “speaks volumes”, adding that “it is a quiet confession that this entire case has no legal foundation”.
The group,9 therefore stated that it “strongly condemns the new round of fake news being pushed by certain Nigerian media outlets” that doesn’t represent the true situation of things.
IPOB once again posed “the core but simple question” whether anyone can be prosecuted or convicted “without a living law that clearly defines the offence and prescribes a punishment”.
The answer is written in Section 36(12) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution: “A person shall not be convicted of a criminal offence unless that offence is defined and the penalty thereof is prescribed in a written law.
“This means you cannot charge or convict anyone unless the law exists in black and white. No judge or lawyer can twist that”.
Referencing the Supreme Court rulings, IPOB pointed out that the apex court “has said the same thing many times — in Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961), A.G. Federation v. Abubakar (2007), and NNPC v. Fawehinmi (1998). Where there is no law, there can be no trial, no conviction, and no justice”.
IPOB explained that “instead of obeying this clear rule, Justice Omotosho keeps trying to force Mazi Nnamdi Kanu to ‘open his defence’ as if pretending there’s a valid case will make it real”.
“This is wrong. It’s a misuse of power and a clear violation of fair hearing. You cannot force a man to defend himself against a ghost charge,” the group stated.
It stated that Nigerians eeserve honest answers to these questions: “Under which law is Mazi Nnamdi Kanu being tried? What Act of the National Assembly defines his supposed offense? And by what right does a judge compel a defence where no offence in law exists?”
IPOB challenged FG and its lawyers to provide “honest answers, not propaganda” in resolving the issue of prosecuting Kanu without .
It said that every Nigerian should read Section 36(12) and know their rights — it protects all of us from tyranny. Any court that ignores the Constitution becomes part of the problem, not the solution”.
IPOB faulted what transpired in court on Friday, with regard to Justice Omotosho’s declaration that he would give judgment without even allowing final addresses from both sides.
It described the stance of the trial judge as “laughable and unheard of in criminal law”.
“If that is truly his position, then maybe he needs to go back to law school and learn what due process means,” IPOB said.
