IPOB demands release of unlawfully detained Igbos

The outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has demanded the release of unlawfully detained Igbo people across Nigeria.

IPOB is a group seeking the secession of the South-east and some parts of the South-south from Nigeria.

The IPOB spokesperson, Emma Powerful, made the demand in a statement forwarded to PREMIUM TIMES on Thursday.

Mr Powerful said the recent release of four male suspected IPOB members after four years in detention at the facility of the State Security Service exposed what he described as systemic injustice against the Igbo people.

He said the release of the four men should not be mistaken for a resolution of the wider concerns over the detention of the group’s members.

He said the group’s legal team had identified 83 people allegedly transferred from military custody at Wawa Barracks in Kainji, Niger State, to correctional facilities in Kuje, Keffi and Suleja.

Mr Powerful claimed that IPOB’s lawyers had communicated the names of legal representatives for the detainees to the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation.

He further alleged that several other people remained in detention, with some reportedly serving life sentences over cases linked to alleged membership of the group.

The IPOB spokesperson argued that the situation was an abuse of state power, insisting that political association or alleged membership of the organisation should not constitute grounds for imprisonment without proof of specific criminal offences.

“Many more remain trapped in a system that has turned Biafran identity and alleged IPOB membership into grounds for arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment. Some are serving life sentences.

“This is not law enforcement. It is the criminalisation of an entire people through the abuse of state power,” he said.

Mr Powerful also questioned the legal basis of IPOB’s proscription, stressing that the process was conducted through a civil ex parte proceeding and lacked the statutory approval required from the President under Section 2(1)(c) of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2013.

He maintained that the signature of a chief of staff could not substitute for presidential approval where such approval was expressly required by law.

The spokesperson cited the judgement in MultiChoice Nigeria Ltd v. FCCPC, involving Justice James Omotosho, arguing that statutory requirements should be applied consistently, irrespective of the parties involved.

“The same law cannot suddenly acquire a different meaning when the rights of Biafrans are at stake.

“One law for MultiChoice and another for Biafrans is not the rule of law. It is judicial and governmental double standards,” he stated.

Mr Powerful equally faulted a court ruling in 2017 designating IPOB as a terrorist organisation, insisting that the government and prosecuting authorities should address the legal implications of the ruling.

“An appeal concerning IPOB’s status and the legality of the proscription is pending before the Supreme Court.

“The government cannot treat those questions as settled merely because it finds the proscription convenient,” he said.

The IPOB spokesperson contended that no individual should be sentenced to life imprisonment solely on the basis of alleged membership of the organisation, insisting that prosecutors must establish specific offences against each defendant.

He urged the Nigerian government to account for the 83 people who had reportedly been identified in correctional facilities in Keffi, Suleja and Kuje, as well as other people allegedly being held in connection with Biafran agitation.

Mr Powerful also asked the United Nations, the US government and the European Union to intervene over what the group termed “violations of the rights of detained Biafrans.”

“The release of the four is not the end of the matter. It is an indictment of the system that kept them imprisoned for four years.

“We demand the freedom of all Biafrans unlawfully detained, and an end to the criminalisation of IPOB membership,” he said.

Background

The government has blamed IPOB for several terror attacks, mostly in south-east Nigeria. Hundreds of people have either been killed or kidnapped in such attacks. The group has, however, often claimed it is not responsible for the attacks.

Following the attacks and the proscription of the group, Nigerian security operatives have arrested and prosecuted suspected IPOB members.

Many suspected IPOB members have been in detention for several years or facing trials at various courts in Nigeria.

The arrest and prosecution of the individuals, often on the basis of their alleged membership of IPOB and involvement in terrorist activities, followed a federal high court ruling in 2017 which proscribed the separatist group and designated it as a terrorist organisation.

IPOB has repeatedly challenged the proscription order in different courts, but a 2025 Court of Appeal ruling affirmed the proscription.

In November last year, Nnamdi Kanu, the IPOB leader, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for terrorism at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The trial judge, James Omotosho, found Mr Kanu guilty of all the charges against him.