The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a banned Igbo separatist organization, has strongly criticized the recent decision by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja. The judge dismissed the no-case submission filed by IPOB’s detained leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, and directed him to present his defence at the forthcoming trial session.
Kanu had submitted the no-case application last Friday, but during the court proceedings, Justice Omotosho rejected it, affirming that the Department of State Services (DSS) had established a prima facie case against the accused.
In delivering his verdict, Justice Omotosho clarified that while he did not declare Kanu guilty, the defendant must still prove his innocence and is entitled to a fair trial.
“The defendant remains presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and it is the prosecution’s responsibility to establish the charges of terrorism and treasonable felony beyond reasonable doubt,” the judge stated.
He further emphasized, “However, given the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses, the defendant is required to provide an explanation.”
Consequently, the court ordered Kanu to begin his defence, concluding that the prosecution had sufficiently demonstrated that there is a case to answer regarding the terrorism allegations leveled by the Nigerian government.
RELATED: 2027 Elections: SERAP Calls on Tinubu to Reveal INEC Chairman Selection Process
Responding to the ruling on Saturday evening, IPOB expressed profound dissatisfaction and demanded clarity from the judge on the meaning behind his statement.
In a press release from IPOB’s Director of Media and Publicity, Emma Powerful, the group denounced the judgment as a tactic to unfairly shift the evidential burden onto their leader, whose sole “offence” is advocating for the self-determination of the Biafran people.
“IPOB vehemently rejects Justice Omotosho’s declaration that ‘the defendant will need to explain certain things’ in the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,” Powerful asserted.
“We challenge Justice Omotosho to specify what these ‘certain things’ are. Is he unaware that Section 36(11) of the Nigerian Constitution prohibits compelling any accused person to testify against themselves?”
“Does the judge not recognize that the prosecution alone bears the burden of proof? Is he implying that Kanu should compensate for the prosecution’s case, which is riddled with conflicting testimonies, lacks investigative reports, and relies on an obsolete statute?”
“This statement reveals the true nature of the Abuja judiciary: their allegiance lies with the government rather than justice. By insisting that our leader ‘explain,’ Justice Omotosho is facilitating persecution rather than upholding the law.”
“We remind the international community that IPOB and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu stand firmly on the principles of truth and international law. The Nigerian judicial system must cease this farce of transferring the burden of proof onto an innocent man whose only ‘crime’ is seeking self-determination for his people,” Powerful concluded.
