InIPOB’s Staged Antics to Undermine Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial an ongoing effort to sway public opinion and influence court proceedings, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) continues to employ theatrical tactics to demand the acquittal of their leader, Nnamdi Kanu. The group recently called for Justice Kolawole Omotosho to drop the current charges, claiming they are based on a repealed law.
IPOB’s argument suggests that the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act of 2013 which was replaced by the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act (TPPA) of 2022somehow absolves Kanu of past crimes. This comes despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld the continuation of his trial, dismissing IPOB’s challenge to Kanu’s extradition from Kenya.
This is not a new strategy for the group. Over the course of the trial, Kanu and his supporters have used various methods to disrupt the legal process and garner public sympathy. This has included spreading fake information, launching malicious reports, and engaging in outright defamation. These actions have escalated to the point of harassing and embarrassing judges in open court.
For example, Kanu once publicly accused Justice Nyako of corruption, alleging that she received bribes and was assigned to his case in exchange for leniency for her family members facing corruption charges. These unsubstantiated claims became so damaging that his own legal team reportedly advised him to apologize. Other judges, including Justice John Tsoho and Justice Haruna Tsammani, have also been targeted with accusations of bias.
Despite repeated contemptuous actions, the consequences for Kanu and his associates have been minimal. Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, for instance, was merely warned after spreading false allegations on social media about Kanu’s visitation rights. Similarly, Linda Kanu faced no charges after posting videos of court proceedings online to intimidate judges.
With the next court date set for October 10, it’s expected that Kanu and IPOB will escalate their efforts. The public should be vigilant for a potential repeat of their typical ploys, such as feigning illness or spreading disinformation that alleges a conspiracy between the Nigerian and British governments.
It is crucial to remember the Supreme Court’s clear position: the circumstances of Kanu’s return to Nigeria are not a valid reason to halt the trial. This aligns with Kanu’s own past statements, where he acknowledged that Supreme Court decisions are binding.
According to a 2025 report by Amnesty International, a staggering number of people were killed in Nigeria’s SouthEast between January 2021 and June 2023. The report links many of these deaths to attacks by “unknown gunmen,” cult groups, and IPOB’s armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN). Given these documented acts of violence and destruction, Nnamdi Kanu has a significant case to answer.
Ultimately, the trial is more than a test of one man’s guilt; it is a test of Nigeria’s judicial system. The judiciary must remain steadfast and ensure the rule of law prevails, regardless of any attempts at intimidation or blackmail. Justice for the countless victims of violence in the SouthEast must be served.
