A legal group representing convicted IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu has accused the Nigerian government of playing two conflicting roles in his prosecution, describing it as both the alleged offender and the body pursuing the case against him.
The claim was contained in a petition sent to the Nigerian Bar Association and the International Bar Association by lawyer Christopher Chidera, who wrote on behalf of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium.
What the Petition Alleges
According to the petition, the consortium wants both bar associations to look closely at what it calls a troubling contradiction in how the federal government has handled the Kanu case from the beginning. The group argues that an institution cannot fairly claim to be both the victim of alleged wrongdoing and the neutral machinery bringing that wrongdoing to trial.
Chidera has previously written to the NBA and IBA on related matters concerning Kanu, including questions about the legal basis for reviving charges the Court of Appeal had earlier quashed. That correspondence formed part of what he described as a series of open letters addressing what he sees as unresolved constitutional and procedural questions in the case.
Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, was convicted by the Federal High Court in Abuja on November 20, 2025, after a trial that stretched back nearly a decade. Justice James Omotosho found him guilty on multiple counts, including acts of terrorism and membership of a terrorist organisation, and sentenced him to life imprisonment on the most serious charges.
Background to the Kanu Case
Kanu was first arrested in 2015 and later left Nigeria while on bail in 2017. He was rearrested abroad in 2021 and returned to Nigeria to face terrorism related charges. His trial passed through four different judges over the years and was marked by repeated adjournments, disputes over legal representation, and questions about the laws under which he was being tried.
Following his conviction and sentencing, Kanu filed a notice of appeal in February 2026, asking the Court of Appeal to quash the judgment and set aside his sentence. His appeal raised numerous grounds, including claims that he was tried under a law that had already been repealed and that earlier court rulings in his favour were not properly accounted for during the later stages of the case.
It is against this backdrop that Chidera and the consortium have continued pressing the NBA and IBA for answers, arguing that the profession’s leading bodies have a duty to speak on constitutional questions raised by the case rather than remain silent.
Why This Matters
The Kanu case has remained one of the most closely watched legal and political matters in Nigeria for years, drawing attention from human rights groups, sections of the legal community, and the wider public in the South East and beyond. Supporters of Kanu see the case as a test of due process, while the federal government has maintained that his broadcasts incited violence that led to real harm, including the deaths of security personnel.
Petitions like this one are unlikely to have a direct legal effect on the ongoing court proceedings, since the NBA and IBA are professional associations rather than judicial bodies. Their significance lies instead in public pressure and the possibility that either body could issue a formal position or seek clarification from relevant authorities.
Neither the NBA nor the IBA had issued a public response to the petition as of the time of this report. The Federal Government has also not commented directly on the specific allegation that it is acting in a dual capacity in the matter.
With Kanu’s appeal still pending before the Court of Appeal, the case is expected to remain a focal point of Nigeria’s legal and political conversation in the weeks ahead, particularly as more details from the consortium’s ongoing correspondence with the bar associations become public.
