ABUJA — The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has launched a blistering attack on the Federal High Court in Abuja, describing Nigeria’s judicial bench as a “weapon of state repression” following the recent sentencing of 48-year-old Paul Okechukwu to 20 years in prison over alleged membership in the proscribed movement.
In a public statement issued on Friday by the group’s Media and Publicity Secretary, Comrade Emma Powerful, IPOB rejected the judgment delivered by Justice Hauwa Yilwa. The secessionist group claimed the ruling forms part of a broader pattern of “state-engineered assault” against Ndigbo, alleging that federal courts are convicting individuals using invalid and repealed laws.
“Convicting Under a Dead Law”
Central to IPOB’s reaction is the contention that the prosecution and subsequent conviction relied on Section 16 of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013—a piece of legislation IPOB asserts was repealed and superseded by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
Referring to an earlier judgment delivered on November 20, 2025, by Justice James Omotosho against IPOB leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, Emma Powerful argued that the Federal High Court is establishing a dangerous precedent by utilizing obsolete legal instruments to secure harsh penalties.
“Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution strictly prohibits convicting any human being under a non-existent written law,” Powerful stated. “Delivering two-decade prison sentences on the skeleton of an expired statute is an absolute nullity.”
Challenge Over Proscription Status
The pro-Biafra organization further called into question the legal foundation used to criminalize membership in the group. IPOB pointed to a March 2, 2017 inter partes ruling by Justice Binta Nyako, which found that IPOB was not an unlawful society after hearing arguments in open court.
The group alleged that the federal government subsequently engaged in “forum shopping” in September 2017 by obtaining an ex parte administrative proscription order from late Justice Abdul Abdu-Kafarati in chambers. IPOB argued that under Order 26, Rule 12 of the Federal High Court Rules, ex parte orders are temporary emergency measures with a 14-day lifespan, questioning how an interim administrative order could serve as a permanent basis for criminal prosecution.
Association vs. Overt Acts of Violence
The statement criticized the state’s prosecution strategy in Paul Okechukwu’s case, alleging that prosecutors withdrew counts relating to direct physical violence and proceeded solely on grounds of “membership”. IPOB argued that jailing a citizen for 20 years merely for peaceful political association, without proof of overt acts of terrorism, amounts to “judicial violence”.
Advisory to Detainees
Directing an warning to its members and Biafran activists currently held in military and security facilities—including the Wawa Barracks in Kainji—IPOB urged detainees to resist pressure to accept plea bargains or enter guilty pleas under duress.
“The state’s strategy is to break your body and mind through starvation, isolation, and psychological torture until a 20-year prison sentence feels like a relief,” Powerful asserted, calling on detainees to demand independent legal representation and force the state to prove its charges under valid statutes.
As of the time of reporting, neither the Federal Ministry of Justice nor the Federal High Court administration has issued an official response to the constitutional points raised in IPOB’s statement.
