Eastern Times

Breaking: MAZI NNAMDI KANU files Direct Criminal Complaint (seeking criminal summons) against two witnesses who testified for the prosecution at his trial on grounds that “they willfully gave false evidence on oath”. The details are below.

INTERNAL DIRECTIVES TO IPOB FAMILY MEMBERS WORLDWIDE
FROM: COMRADE EMMA POWERFUL, SPOKESPERSON/MEDIA AND PUBLICITY SECRETARY FOR (IPOB)

DATE: 9TH NOVEMBER 2025.

ATTENTION: ALL IPOB FAMILY UNITS, ZONES, COORDINATORS AND MEDIA VOLUNTEERS
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE ON MEDIA PROPAGANDA REGARDING COURT PROCEEDINGS OF ONYENDU MAZI NNAMDI KANU

DEAR IPOB FAMILY MEMBERS WORLDWIDE,

In the coming days, you will see news reports, social media posts, or public statements suggesting that Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu “refused to defend himself” in court. This memo provides clear guidance to help you understand the facts and respond accordingly.

This is important so that our members are not confused by misinformation.

1. Key Question to Ask Anyone Making Claims
If anyone claims that Onyendu has “forfeited his right to defence,” calmly ask them one simple question:

“Please show me the exact written law under which he is being tried.”

If there is no law, there can be no valid trial. Nigerian law requires that every criminal charge must be based on an existing written law.

2. Why This Question Matters
For over two weeks in court, Onyendu repeatedly asked for the written law being used to try him. Justice Omotosho did not provide it.
The Constitution (Section 36(12)) says no person can be convicted unless the offence and penalty are clearly written in a valid law not repealed law.

3. Ask for the Required Approval from Kenya
If anyone argues further, ask them:

“Can you show me the court order or approval from Kenyan court that allowed this charge to be tried in Nigeria?”

Because Onyendu was taken from Kenya, international law and Nigeria’s own law require Kenyan approval for any charges.
This is called the double-criminality rule, and it must be satisfied before trial, not after. Ignorant people don't know this but Onyendu knows.

It is reflected in Section 76(1)(d)(iii) of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act (TPPA).

4. About the “Savings Clause” Argument
Some may mention something called a “savings clause” to justify using a repealed law. You only need to know this simple point:

Section 36(12) of the Constitution protects this right. It cannot be removed or reduced by any court or law.

No court can convict Onyendu using a repealed or non-existent law by claiming that a savings clause exist.

5. Why Onyendu Did Not Present a Defence
It is important to understand this clearly:

If Onyendu had presented a defence before the court confirmed that a valid law exists, it would mean accepting the trial as proper.
Doing so could allow a judgment to be entered against him without resolving these constitutional issues.

He chose the lawful and correct path:
A court must show its legal basis before an accused can be required to defend themselves.

6. What Our Members Should Do
Insist they show you the written law. Facts, not emotions.
Do not engage in online arguments unless they show you the law.
Use the four questions above if you must respond.
Justice Omotosho knows that's why he ran from his own court room.
If the person cannot answer the basic question:

“Where is the written law for this charge?”

…the discussion ends there.

7. Final Reminder
Our responsibility is to stay informed and disciplined. Do not let anyone deceive you into thinking Omotosho can convict Onyendu without a subsisting law. To try that will mean the end of Nigerian judiciary as we know it.

We will continue to provide guidance as events unfold.

Thank you for your discipline and steadfastness.

COMRADE EMMA POWERFUL SPOKESPERSON/MEDIA AND PUBLICITY SECRETARY FOR THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA (IPOB).

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Challenges Validity of Charges, Refuses To Open Defence

Abuja | October 27, 2025

At the resumed hearing of his ongoing trial at the Federal High Court in Abuja today, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, declared before the court that he had thoroughly examined the case file and found no valid charge against him.

Nnamdi Kanu told the court that, having carefully reviewed the prosecution’s case, he was convinced that the charges lacked legal foundation and that the entire trial amounted to an unlawful process. On that basis, he stated that there would be no need for him to open any defence.

In response, Justice James Omotosho advised Kanu to file a formal written address reflecting his position and to serve the same on the prosecution team. The judge further counseled him to seek expert advice from professionals well-versed in criminal law to understand the legal implications of his chosen path.

Following the exchange, Justice Omotosho adjourned the matter to November 4th, 5th, and 6th, 2025, for the adoption of final written addresses. During those sessions, the court is expected to determine whether the evidence and charges presented so far have established a prima facie case against the defendant or, as Kanu contends, whether the prosecution has failed to make out any case at all.

This development marks a critical turning point in the long-running trial, which has drawn national and international attention over questions of justice, due process and political persecution.

Source: Family Writers Press International