The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has finally reacted to the recent judgment involving its detained leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
The group is asking the Federal High Court in Abuja to spell out the exact legal provisions that formed the backbone of Justice James Omotosho’s ruling.
IPOB says the verdict has raised several constitutional questions that cannot be ignored.
In a new statement signed by its spokesperson, Comrade Emma Powerful, the group said it plans to break down the judgment in detail and publicly highlight what it considers major legal inconsistencies.
IPOB stated that it will present its findings to both Nigerians and the international community.
According to the organisation, the court never tendered any weapons or items linked to violence, and no witness reportedly testified that Kanu committed any offence under Nigerian or international law.
IPOB maintains these points were already clear from the courtroom proceedings.
The group repeated its long-standing position that self-determination is a legitimate and globally recognised right.
It referenced international charters that protect such advocacy, stressing that calls for a referendum should not be mistaken for criminal activity.
IPOB further pointed to Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that no person can be convicted for an offence that is not defined in a written law.
The group is now challenging Justice Omotosho to identify the exact written law relied upon in the ruling and confirm whether that law is still valid.
The statement noted that IPOB will continue to examine the judgment line-by-line and raise what it describes as serious constitutional and procedural concerns.
It insisted the case is bigger than the organisation itself, saying it speaks to human rights, judicial transparency, and the rule of law in Nigeria.
The group also restated its commitment to peaceful agitation and said it will intensify diplomatic engagements with international bodies as it continues pushing its campaign through lawful channels.