The legal storm around the detention and conviction of the Indigenous People of Biafra leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has taken a new turn after he issued a strongly worded open letter accusing the Federal Government of what he called “serial executive and judicial fraud” since his extraordinary rendition from Kenya in 2021.
Kanu’s letter released yesterday and addressed to Nigerians reopened long-standing questions about his arrest, trial and continued detention. The message also revisited earlier rulings by the Federal High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court which, according to him, ought to have secured his release long before the Federal High Court convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment last week.
In the letter, Kanu insisted that the legal foundations of his case had been compromised at several stages. He said: “In a judgment entered on March 1, 2017, the Federal High Court ruled that the ‘IPOB is not an unlawful group’. Instead of appealing that judgment, the former Attorney-General went behind closed doors with a letter signed by late Abba Kyari and got IPOB tagged as a terrorist organisation in an ex parte proceedings conducted without notice to me or IPOB.”
Kanu described the proscription as “an unholy and fraudulent alliance” between the executive and certain judicial actors and accused the government of deliberately ignoring lawful court orders in order to keep him in detention.
He recalled the October 26, 2022 decision of the Federal High Court which faulted the manner of his arrest and detention in Kenya and Abuja, ruling that the government violated his constitutional rights. The court had ordered an apology and compensation. Kanu said: “In a responsible and well-ordered society, that judgment is sufficient to have ended my detention.”
He also pointed to the Court of Appeal’s judgment of October 13, 2022, which held that his rendition from Kenya divested any court of jurisdiction over his trial. According to him, the government disobeyed the judgment and “connived with three other justices of the Court of Appeal who fraudulently sat on appeal and issued what they termed a stay of execution.”
He questioned the legal validity of staying a judgment already disobeyed, adding: “It is abominable for a court to stay a judgment the government already disobeyed.”
Kanu further argued that the Supreme Court, while sending the case back for trial in December 2023, also faulted the revocation of his bail and identified bias in the process. He said restoring his bail was mandatory under Section 287 of the Constitution but faulted the trial court for refusing to do so.
He also revisited his September 2024 request for the trial judge’s recusal, which was granted. According to him, the Chief Judge’s subsequent decision to reassign the matter to the same judge “stands in violation of the extant recusal order.”
Kanu ended his letter with a firm declaration that he would reject any trial that, in his view, lacks constitutional legitimacy. “I will not succumb to any trial conducted by any judge or court whose jurisdiction does not pass constitutional muster. Not now, not ever,” he wrote.
His latest comments come at a time when last week’s judgment by Justice James Omotosho convicting him of terrorism and sentencing him to life imprisonment—has generated widespread debate.
A Trial That Spanned a Decade
Kanu’s prosecution has been one of the country’s most contentious legal battles in the past ten years. The matter travelled through multiple judges, with disruptions ranging from his flight from Nigeria in 2017 to his rendition from Kenya in 2021. The proceedings were often marked by tight security, intense public interest and political undertones.
Last week’s conviction arrived only 24 hours after the judgment was typed and delivered—an unusually fast turnaround that added to the controversy surrounding the case.
Lawyers Split on the Verdict
While the Observer Times did not speak to any of the senior lawyers quoted in earlier reports, their public positions—already in circulation through legal commentaries and published interviews—reflect sharply divided opinions.
Some argue that the trial judge followed due process and gave Kanu more opportunities than any recent defendant in a terror-related case. Others insist that the judgment is fundamentally defective both in law and procedure.
Kanu’s Letter Reignites National Debate
His open letter has put fresh pressure on the government and the judiciary as the case heads toward another round of appeals. The issues he raised—ranging from the legality of IPOB’s proscription and the constitutionality of his rendition to alleged judicial inconsistencies—are likely to dominate public discourse in the weeks ahead.
For now, the IPOB leader remains in custody, standing by his position that only a trial conducted before what he called “a proper and impartial court” can move the case forward.
