IPOB Says FG Cross-Appeal Undermines Kanu’s Conviction, Claims ‘Jurisdiction Is Not a Buffet’

ABUJA, Nigeria – The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has declared that the Federal Government’s cross-appeal in the case of its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has fundamentally weakened the legal foundation of his conviction and raised serious questions about the jurisdiction of the trial court. In a statement issued on Friday, June 5, 2026, by the group’s spokesperson, Emma Powerful, IPOB argued that the appeal process has moved beyond the fate of Kanu alone and now places the credibility of the Nigerian judiciary under intense scrutiny. The group claimed that the Federal Government, in its cross-appeal filed in response to Kanu’s appeal, allegedly admitted that Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, acted without jurisdiction when he convicted Kanu and sentenced him to life imprisonment instead of the death penalty.

“The global family of the Indigenous People of Biafra… wishes to draw the attention of all reasonable Nigerians, the international community, members of the diplomatic corps, legal practitioners, human-rights organizations, and all defenders of constitutional government to a reality that can no longer be hidden,” the statement said. IPOB said the recent cross-appeal filed by the Federal Government, in which it allegedly conceded that the trial court acted without jurisdiction in imposing a life sentence instead of a death penalty, had “changed everything” about the case. The group noted that the Federal Government’s brief of argument was filed on Friday, June 5, 2026, at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, in response to Kanu’s appeal challenging his conviction.

IPOB seized on the government’s cross-appeal argument that the trial judge erred by imposing a life sentence instead of the death penalty, interpreting this as a concession that the court acted without proper legal authority. “The Federal Government has effectively fired a cannon through the heart of the judgment it is simultaneously attempting to defend,” the statement read in part. “The implication is simple. Jurisdiction is not divisible. Jurisdiction is not a buffet… Jurisdiction is a continuum,” the group said. IPOB argued that if the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the sentencing stage, then the entire conviction should be considered invalid, maintaining that “the conviction and sentence are juridically inseparable. One cannot survive without the other.”

READ ALSO:

• Former UNILORIN VC Professor AbdulGaniyu Ambali Dies at 68
• Oyo Kidnappers Demand Release of Ansaru Terrorist Commanders in Exchange for Schoolchildren
• Kaduna Woman Sues Husband for Renting Out Her Bedroom Without Permission

IPOB further contended that the Court of Appeal would be forced to either reject or reconcile what it described as contradictions in the Federal Government’s position. “Any attempt by the Court of Appeal to affirm the conviction while simultaneously accepting the Federal Government’s admission regarding jurisdiction would require the creation of an entirely new species of criminal jurisprudence unknown to Nigeria, unknown to the Commonwealth, and unknown to the common-law world,” the statement added. “The court would effectively be saying that a trial court can lack jurisdiction and yet validly convict.” The group argued that the Federal Government has inadvertently converted itself into a witness against its own judgment. “If the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose sentence, as the Federal Government now asserts, then the same trial court lacked jurisdiction to produce the conviction from which the sentence supposedly arose,” IPOB stated. “The question now becomes unavoidable: If the trial court lacked jurisdiction, what exactly is left to affirm?”

Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, convicted Kanu on November 20, 2025, on terrorism charges filed against him by the Federal Government, sentencing him to life imprisonment. Kanu is currently serving his life sentence at the Sokoto Correctional Facility. Kanu had previously filed his notice of appeal on February 4, 2026, challenging the conviction on 22 grounds. In that appeal, Kanu argued, among other things, that the trial court delivered its judgment while a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the charge and his bail application remained pending and undetermined, and that the court erred by convicting him under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013, which he asserted had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022. Kanu also alleged that he was denied a fair hearing because he was not permitted to file and adopt a final written address before the verdict was delivered, and that the trial judge failed to grant him the right of allocutus—the opportunity to address the court before sentencing—and neglected to consider relevant mitigating factors. Following Kanu’s appeal, the Federal Government filed its cross-appeal, seeking an upward review of the sentence from life imprisonment to the death penalty. It is this cross-appeal that IPOB now claims contains the admission that Justice Omotosho acted without jurisdiction.

IPOB also outlined what it described as multiple procedural and legal defects in the trial proceedings. The group alleged that the proceedings were founded on repealed statutes, specifically noting that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 under which Kanu was charged had been repealed by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022. The group further claimed that Kanu was denied a final address and allocutus, that the court failed to determine jurisdictional objections properly, and that the prosecution relied on provisions not pleaded in the charges. According to IPOB, the trial judge himself acknowledged that without a written law there can be no conviction, yet proceeded to convict Kanu under a repealed law. “The TPAA was not a written law in force in Nigeria as of 20 November 2025,” IPOB stated, referring to the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act. The group further alleged that there was a failure to disclose applicable statutes and withholding of evidence, along with the denial of fair hearing. According to IPOB, these alleged irregularities have rendered Kanu’s conviction legally unsustainable.

READ ALSO:

• Nollywood Actress and Abia Gov Candidate Doris Ogala Collapses in Umuahia, Hospitalized at FMC
• US Intercepts Iranian Missiles, Drones Targeting Kuwait, Bahrain
• Nigerian Priest Sentenced to Life in Prison for Sexually Assaulting Women in Texas

IPOB declared that the Nigerian judiciary itself is now on trial, arguing that the issues before the Court of Appeal extend far beyond the fate of one man. “The issue before the Court of Appeal in the case of Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is no longer merely about one man. It is now about whether the Nigerian judicial system is prepared to remain a legal institution or whether it is prepared to openly repudiate its own foundational principles,” the statement read. IPOB further argued that the appeal has assumed significance far beyond the immediate parties involved in the case. “The Court of Appeal is no longer deciding merely whether Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu should be convicted. It is deciding whether long-established principles of Nigerian criminal law still mean what they say,” IPOB said. “It would have to explain how a conviction can stand when the trial judge himself acknowledged that without a written law there can be no conviction,” the statement added.

The group warned that the implications of the appeal could extend beyond Kanu’s case and affect future criminal prosecutions in Nigeria. “Every future criminal defendant would be entitled to ask whether jurisdiction still matters… whether fair hearing still matters… whether constitutional supremacy still matters,” it said. “The Nigerian judiciary now stands at a crossroads. One path preserves the integrity of constitutional government. The other path requires the abandonment of principles repeatedly proclaimed by Nigerian courts over many decades,” the statement warned. The group called on the international community, members of the diplomatic corps, legal practitioners, human rights organizations, and all defenders of constitutional government to pay close attention to the proceedings. IPOB insisted that the outcome would have lasting consequences for Nigeria’s legal system and described the appeal as a test for the judiciary, urging observers within and outside Nigeria to monitor proceedings closely.

The legal saga surrounding Nnamdi Kanu has seen numerous twists since his initial arrest in 2015. He was granted bail in April 2017 but fled the country after an invasion of his home by the Nigerian military in September 2017 during Operation Python Dance. He was re-arrested in Kenya and controversially renditioned back to Nigeria in June 2021. The Court of Appeal had previously, on October 13, 2022, held that the manner of Kanu’s rendition violated the country’s extradition treaty and breached his fundamental human rights, striking out the terrorism charges and ordering his release. However, the Federal Government appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, which set aside the Court of Appeal’s judgment and ruled that the trial could proceed despite the violation of Kanu’s rights. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the trial resumed before Justice Omotosho, leading to the November 2025 conviction that is now the subject of the competing appeals. The Court of Appeal is yet to fix a hearing date for the appeals, while the Federal Government has not publicly responded to IPOB’s latest claims.

For readers seeking a quick summary of the key details, the following information has been confirmed. Nnamdi Kanu was convicted on November 20, 2025, by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He is currently serving his sentence at the Sokoto Correctional Facility. Kanu filed his appeal on February 4, 2026, on 22 grounds. The Federal Government filed its cross-appeal on June 5, 2026, seeking the death penalty. IPOB claims that the cross-appeal contains an admission that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose the life sentence, arguing that jurisdiction is indivisible and that the conviction and sentence cannot be separated. The Court of Appeal has not yet fixed a hearing date for the appeals.

IPOB Says FG Cross-Appeal Undermines Kanu’s Conviction, Claims ‘Jurisdiction Is Not a Buffet’