‘Nigeria wants to crush Biafran identity’ – Lawyer condemns 20-year jail for IPOB membership

“The Abuja bench must answer one unassailable question: When did an unappealed, procedurally defective, ex parte administrative order replace the constitutional requirement to prove a specific crime under a valid written law?”

Stressing that a court had declared IPOB’s proscription illegal, Chidera pointed out that, on March 2, 2017, Justice Binta Nyako struck out six counts against Nnamdi Kanu, ruling that IPOB was not an unlawful society.

Chidera, while insisting that an ex parte order is not a judicial blank cheque, added, “Under Order 26, Rule 12 of the Federal High Court Rules, an ex parte order is a temporary emergency measure with a strict 14-day lifespan. Transforming a two-week interim procedural order into a permanent, 20-year penal trap violates basic civil procedure and Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

“Status is not conduct: Proscription regulates an organisation’s administrative status; it is not proof of individual guilt. An executive label does not relieve the state of proving an overt criminal act against a living defendant.”

According to him, the 22-ground appellant brief filed by Nnamdi Kanu against his conviction challenged the basis of the proscription.

Stating that the declaration lacks presidential authority, he said, “The proscription order failed to satisfy basic statutory prerequisites — a principle reinforced by Justice James Omotosho himself in MultiChoice Nigeria Ltd v. FCCPC, where he held that statutory powers vested in a specific authority cannot be bypassed or assumed without explicit compliance with condition precedents.

“Ex Parte cannot defeat inter partes. A closed-door administrative order cannot override an existing, binding judgment. Rushing lower courts to hand down maximum sentences while the Supreme Court is actively seized of the proscription’s legality proves the regime is in a frantic race to silence dissent before its legal house of cards collapses.

“Justice James Omotosho’s November 20, 2025 judgment against Nnamdi Kanu set a lawless precedent by convicting him under the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013—a statute expressly repealed by the 2022 Act.

“Now, Justice Hauwa Yilwa has recycled that exact constitutional illegality to sentence Paul Okechukwu to 20 years in prison under Section 16 of the same dead 2013 Act.”

Insisting that association is not terrorism, Chidera noted that when prosecutors dropped the violent attack count against Paul Okechukwu and proceeded solely on “membership,” they admitted they had zero evidence of violence.

“Jailing a human being for two decades for mere association—detached from any proven act of violence—is judicial violence,” he added.

The lawyer therefore warned Igbo youths who are currently in detention over alleged IPOB membership against pleading guilty under coercion.

He said, “To every Igbo youth and Biafran activist languishing in the notorious Wawa Barracks or other secret detention facilities across the country: Do not succumb to psychological torture, starvation, or isolation by pleading guilty to crimes you did not commit.

“The state’s strategy is simple: break your spirit through indefinite, inhumane detention until a 20-year prison sentence feels like a relief compared to their dungeons. A coerced plea is not freedom—it is a trap that legalises your torment and cements your imprisonment.

“Hold the line: Desperation does not validate a false confession, and psychological coercion voids any guilty plea under Section 36 of the Constitution. Demand legal access: Refuse to sign pre-drafted admissions or accept plea bargains without independent, uncoerced legal counsel.

“Force the state to prove its case: An executive designation is not proof of individual guilt. Make the prosecution discharge its heavy constitutional burden under a valid written law.”

He raised five questions for the courts, stating, “How can the state rely on an ex parte order while ignoring Justice Nyako’s binding inter partes ruling that IPOB is lawful? By what constitutional logic does a 14-day interim order become a permanent presumption of criminal guilt? How can a conviction delivered under a repealed statute satisfy Section 36(12) of the Constitution? Where is the written law converting peaceful advocacy or Biafran identity into a 20-year terrorist offence? What specific, overt act of violence did Paul Okechukwu commit to justify stealing 20 years of his life?”

The lawyer noted that a judge’s gown does not elevate him above the Constitution, adding that labelling a movement “terrorist” does not suspend human rights.

According to him, the Constitution remains supreme and the law must prevail over political intimidation.