IPOB Gives FG 14-Day Ultimatum to List Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal or Face Election Boycott

Separatist group accuses government of avoiding court after rushing to convict Kanu, demands urgent listing of appeal

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has issued a 14-day ultimatum to the Federal Government, demanding the immediate listing and hearing of detained leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s appeal, or face a boycott of the 2027 general election across the South-East and other parts of what the group describes as “Biafraland”. The ultimatum was issued on Monday by IPOB’s Head of Directorate of State (DOS), Mazi Chris Nwaogu, in a video broadcast. The development follows renewed concerns by Kanu’s family over the delay in hearing the appeal against the conviction and life sentence handed to the IPOB leader. The family recently disclosed that Kanu wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the President of the Court of Appeal, seeking the immediate listing and hearing of his pending cases.

Nwaogu accused the Federal Government of avoiding the court after moving swiftly to secure Kanu’s conviction. “The Federal Government has not filed a Respondent’s brief, they have not listed the appeal, they have not come to court. A country that rushed to convict is now too frightened to defend the conviction,” he said. He warned that the group would consider mobilising for a boycott of the 2027 elections if the government failed to act within the stipulated period. “We are giving them 14 days to list Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s appeal, if they refuse, we will consider boycotting the coming elections across Biafraland and beyond. A government that cannot face its Court of Appeal has no right to demand our votes,” Nwaogu added.

READ ALSO:

• Tinubu’s FBI records: Reno Omokri explains why President opposes release
• Seyi Tinubu Can Change Things at NFF — Obafemi Martins Backs President’s Son for Football Reform
• “I Cursed the Pastor” — Yemi Solade Reveals Why He Quit Church 13 Years Ago

Nwaogu also criticised the handling of Kanu’s case by the Nigerian judiciary, alleging that the proceedings from the trial court through the appellate stages had exposed serious concerns about the country’s judicial system. “This judicial conspiracy through the trial court to the remittal and the present silence will shame the Chief Justice of Nigeria and all lawyers who still pretend this system is healthy. This case will either reset the Nigerian judiciary or expose it,” he said. He particularly faulted the Supreme Court’s decision which overturned Kanu’s discharge and acquittal by the Court of Appeal, insisting that the apex court exceeded its constitutional powers by pronouncing on individual counts that had already been quashed by the Court of Appeal. “Justice Lawal Garba, JSC, crossed a line that the Constitution does not allow. This is the heart of the matter,” Nwaogu stated, arguing that a court “cannot manufacture jurisdiction that has ceased to exist.”

The Okwu-Kanu family had earlier raised the alarm over the delay in hearing Kanu’s appeal against his conviction. In a statement, the family disclosed that Kanu had separately petitioned the Chief Justice of Nigeria and the President of the Court of Appeal, requesting the immediate listing and hearing of his pending cases. The family drew a direct comparison to October 2022, when the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment discharging Kanu and quashing the criminal counts against him. According to the family, the Federal Government obtained a stay of execution just 14 days after that judgment, preventing Kanu from regaining his freedom. “Fourteen days. In fourteen days, the machinery of the Court of Appeal moved from an acquittal-equivalent discharge to a civil stay that kept Mazi Nnamdi Kanu in detention,” the family stated. The family disclosed plans to formally notify the United States Congress, Israeli Knesset, and International Bar Association of what it described as an “unacceptable delay” in the handling of Kanu’s cases.

Kanu commenced proceedings before the Supreme Court on November 7, 2025, challenging the legality of the apex court’s December 15, 2023 remittal judgment. According to the family, the Federal Government was duly served but has not filed a substantive response more than nine months later. There is also a separate appeal before the Court of Appeal challenging Kanu’s November 20, 2025 conviction and life sentence. Kanu’s Appellant’s Brief was filed on June 5, 2026, and served on the Federal Government, but the prescribed period for filing the Respondent’s Brief has elapsed without one being filed. In a related development, the Federal Government has withdrawn its cross-appeal seeking the death penalty against Kanu. Kanu’s Special Counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, confirmed that the government formally communicated its decision not to pursue the aspect of the appeal seeking to replace the life sentence with capital punishment.

IPOB Gives FG 14-Day Ultimatum to List Nnamdi Kanu’s Appeal or Face Election Boycott

Tinubu’s FBI records: Reno Omokri explains why President opposes release

Former presidential aide Reno Omokri has defended President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s opposition to the public release of records held by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the existence of government files does not automatically mean that an individual has a criminal record.

Omokri made the submission on Monday, August 31, 2026, in a statement published on X while reacting to the renewed controversy surrounding Tinubu’s efforts to prevent the release of unredacted records concerning him.

The controversy follows an ongoing legal battle in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, where Tinubu’s lawyers are opposing a request by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan for access to records held by US law-enforcement agencies.

Omokri argued that the FBI maintains extensive records on individuals for reasons that have nothing to do with criminal convictions or wrongdoing.

He said the FBI may have information on US citizens, residents and foreign nationals whose names have been subjected to background checks for purposes including visa applications and other government processes.

“This is because the FBI conducts MANDATORY background screenings on behalf of the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security on US visa applicants,” Omokri said.

He argued that a name appearing in an FBI database could generate numerous pages of records without those documents necessarily containing evidence of criminal conduct.

“Thus, as a US citizen or resident, or even as a foreign national, if your name is run through the FBI databases, it is likely to bring up hundreds of pages of records. This does not mean that the records are criminal. In most cases, they will be benign,” he said.

Omokri further argued that law-enforcement records can contain highly sensitive personal information, including biometric, biographical and financial details.

READ ALSO:

• Seyi Tinubu Can Change Things at NFF — Obafemi Martins Backs President’s Son for Football Reform
• “I Cursed the Pastor” — Yemi Solade Reveals Why He Quit Church 13 Years Ago
• EFCC Recovers N1.23tn, $684m as Convictions Hit 10,872 in Three Years — Olukoyede

He questioned whether Nigerians would want such private information released publicly or handed to political opponents simply because the person involved is a public official.

“Would you, as an individual, want your private records released to your political opponents, even if they were non-criminal?” he asked.

His comments came amid renewed attention to Tinubu’s legal challenge against the release of unredacted FBI and DEA records.

The President’s lawyers have argued that US privacy laws and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) protect information contained in the requested documents.

They have also challenged the argument that Tinubu’s status as Nigeria’s President creates a sufficient public-interest basis for releasing otherwise protected personal information.

The legal dispute followed Greenspan’s FOIA efforts to obtain records relating to Tinubu from several US government agencies.

The requested material is connected to historical investigations involving Tinubu and dates largely to the period when he was involved in business and political activities in the United States.

The FBI and other US agencies have previously relied on various FOIA exemptions when dealing with requests for sensitive investigative records. Such exemptions can cover personal privacy, confidential sources, investigative methods and information whose disclosure could expose individuals to harm.

The current US case is therefore a dispute over access to government records, rather than a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.

Omokri also sought to counter claims that Tinubu had previously been identified by US authorities as having a criminal record.

He referred to correspondence between the US Consulate in Lagos and then Inspector-General of Police Tafa Balogun in February 2003.

According to Omokri, Balogun had written to the US authorities seeking information on whether the FBI had criminal records concerning Tinubu, who was then governor of Lagos State.

Omokri said the US Consulate responded the following day after conducting a check of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database.

Contemporary reporting on the correspondence indicates that the check returned no criminal arrest records, wants or warrants concerning Tinubu.

Omokri described the response as an “all clear” and cited it as evidence supporting his position that Tinubu had not been identified as having a criminal arrest or warrant in that particular US database check.

However, the 2003 correspondence should not be interpreted as a blanket declaration that no other investigative, administrative or government records concerning Tinubu existed.

READ ALSO:

• NELFUND Boss Dismisses Misappropriation Claims, Insists All Payments Traceable Electronically
• ANTP Debunks Cancer Rumors as Actor Wale Elesho Undergoes Successful Facial Surgery
• Mother Arrested for Smuggling ‘Colos’ to Son on Death Row in Ogun Prison

The distinction is important because the current FOIA litigation concerns broader records held by US agencies.

Omokri said he also travelled to Chicago in 2022, while he was associated with the political opposition, to investigate questions surrounding Tinubu’s academic and other records.

He challenged anyone who doubts the authenticity of the 2003 US Embassy correspondence to seek clarification from the US Embassy.

The controversy over Tinubu’s US records also has a separate history dating back to the 1990s.

In 1993, a US federal court in Illinois ordered the forfeiture of approximately $460,000 connected to a bank account associated with Tinubu.

US authorities alleged that the money represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or was connected to prohibited financial transactions.

The case was a civil forfeiture proceeding, rather than a criminal prosecution resulting in a conviction.

The issue later became a major part of legal challenges surrounding Tinubu’s eligibility and qualifications during the 2023 Nigerian presidential election litigation.

The Presidential Election Petition Court acknowledged the forfeiture proceedings but held that the petitioners had not established that Tinubu had been arrested, arraigned, convicted or sentenced in a criminal case in the United States.

The court therefore rejected arguments that the forfeiture amounted to a criminal conviction that could disqualify Tinubu from contesting the Nigerian presidency.

The distinction between civil forfeiture and criminal conviction has remained central to the political debate over Tinubu’s history in the United States.

Tinubu’s supporters have maintained that the forfeiture proceeding did not result in a criminal conviction, while his critics have continued to demand greater transparency concerning the circumstances surrounding the funds.

The latest FOIA case has now brought the issue back into public attention, with Greenspan seeking additional records from US government agencies and Tinubu’s lawyers asking the court to prevent or restrict their release.

Omokri maintains that the public should distinguish between an FBI file and a criminal record.

“President Bola Tinubu has no criminal record in the United States, Nigeria, or anywhere else,” he said.

READ ALSO:

• FG Opens N10 Billion TETFund Research Grant Applications — How Lecturers Can Apply
• US strikes Iranian rocket launchers on Larak Island as war enters sixth month
• Dangote Defends Petrol Price Hikes as Pump Prices Near N1,400 Amid Crude Cost Controversy

He argued that the existence of records in an FBI database cannot, on its own, establish criminal wrongdoing.

Opposition figures, however, have taken a different position.

African Democratic Congress (ADC) spokesperson Bolaji Abdullahi has argued that Tinubu should allow the records to be released if they contain nothing damaging, saying disclosure could help settle the controversy.

Other opposition voices have similarly demanded greater transparency, arguing that Nigerians have a legitimate interest in information concerning the background of a sitting President.

The disagreement therefore centres on the balance between privacy rights, government-record protections and public interest.

Tinubu’s lawyers are seeking to rely on protections available under US law, while Greenspan is pursuing access through the FOIA process.

The US court will ultimately determine what records, if any, can be released and which portions may legally remain withheld or redacted.

The current litigation does not itself establish that Tinubu committed a criminal offence, nor does it constitute a criminal case against the Nigerian President.

For now, the dispute remains focused on whether US government agencies should disclose additional records concerning Tinubu and whether privacy and other FOIA exemptions justify withholding or redacting the material.

Omokri’s intervention has added another layer to the debate, with the former presidential aide insisting that FBI records should not automatically be portrayed as evidence of criminal conduct.

The controversy is expected to remain politically significant in Nigeria as the US court considers the competing arguments over transparency, privacy and access to government records involving the Nigerian President.

Tinubu’s FBI records: Reno Omokri explains why President opposes release