Legal practitioner, Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq., has dismissed recent claims in an article titled “IPOB’s Voodoo Justice and Group’s Plan to Manipulate Court for Nnamdi Kanu’s Acquittal”, describing it as propaganda lacking legal merit.
In a detailed rebuttal, Ifedi argued that the prosecution of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, rests on a repealed law — the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 — which cannot legally sustain any trial.
Quoting the Supreme Court in Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961), he emphasized that “a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless that crime is defined and the penalty prescribed in a written law,” stressing that “a dead law cannot found a living prosecution.”
Justice Nyako’s Recusal and Judicial Independence
Ifedi also recalled the controversy surrounding Justice Binta Nyako’s attempted recusal, noting that Nnamdi Kanu had openly challenged her reliance on the Chief Judge’s “instructions.” He maintained that the Chief Justice’s eventual transfer of the case to Justice James Omotosho was a matter of judicial independence, not intimidation.
Evidence “A Disgrace to Criminal Jurisprudence”
The lawyer faulted the prosecution’s evidence, describing it as doctored DSS broadcasts lacking credibility. He cited Suberu v. State (2010), stressing that courts must only admit evidence that is relevant, admissible, and credible.
Discharge Equals Acquittal
Contrary to the propaganda article’s claims, Ifedi insisted that the Court of Appeal’s October 13, 2022 discharge of Nnamdi Kanu amounted to a full acquittal. Citing Abacha v. State (2002) and Ibori v. Agbi (2004), he noted that a discharge on jurisdictional grounds is legally an acquittal, making any further trial a violation of Section 36(9) of the Constitution on double jeopardy.
He further argued that Section 97 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022 cannot revive quashed charges, as saving clauses “cannot breathe life into what is already dead in law” (A.-G., Federation v. Abubakar, 2007).
IPOB’s Legal Status and Canada’s Terrorism Ruling
Ifedi reiterated that IPOB is not an unlawful society, referencing a March 1, 2017 ruling of the Federal High Court, Umuahia, which remains valid. He dismissed Justice Kafarati’s ex parte proscription order as unconstitutional, citing Agbakoba (1999) on the necessity of fair hearing.
Turning to international perspectives, he pointed out that on July 28, 2025, the Superior Court of Ontario, Canada, ruled that Nigeria’s ruling APC and PDP qualify as terrorist organisations, further undermining attempts to label IPOB as such.
Conclusion
The lawyer described the referenced article as “noise without substance,” stressing that the law remains clear:
A repealed law cannot sustain prosecution.
Discharge by the appellate court equals acquittal.
Saving clauses cannot resurrect dead charges.
IPOB’s proscription order was unconstitutional.
He concluded that “Nigeria’s ruling elite, not IPOB, wear the terrorist label in the eyes of the international community.”
Signed:
Onyedikachi Ifedi, Esq.
Legal Practitioner & Advocate for Constitutional JusticeConsultant to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium
Post a Comment