The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has alleged that a key prosecution witness cited by the Federal Government in the ongoing trial of its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, never appeared before the Federal High Court.
In a statement issued on Saturday by IPOB’s spokesperson, Emma Powerful, the group claimed that the individual identified as ‘Onyearmy’—purportedly presented by the prosecution—did not testify during the last court session as alleged.
“Let it be made clear to the Nigerian public and the international community: Onyearmy never appeared in court. He never testified. His so-called statement was neither given in court nor submitted directly to the DSS investigators handling the case,” the statement read.
According to IPOB, the only witness who appeared was identified as “PW-DDD,” a Department of State Services (DSS) operative. The group alleged that the operative merely recited excerpts from a Vanguard newspaper publication allegedly quoting Onyearmy.
“Incredibly, PW-DDD admitted under oath that he never interviewed Onyearmy and had no first-hand knowledge of any such confession,” Powerful asserted, describing the act as a “brazen evidentiary fraud.”
Citing relevant legal provisions, the IPOB spokesperson referenced:
Section 29 of the Evidence Act, which prohibits involuntary and unverified confessions;
Section 83(1) of the Evidence Act, which renders third-party hearsay—including newspaper reports—inadmissible;
Section 36(6) of the Constitution, which guarantees an accused person’s right to confront their accuser; and
Section 36(8) bars further prosecution if the punishment for an offence has already been served or exceeded.
Beyond evidentiary concerns, IPOB further argued that the ongoing trial itself violates legal jurisdiction. Citing the decision in CA/ABJ/CR/625/2022, the group claimed the Court of Appeal had already ruled that any alleged offence took place in Ubulisiuzor, Anambra State, and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Awka—not Abuja.
“Proceedings in Abuja are in open defiance of a binding appellate judgment. Under Section 178 of CEMA, jurisdiction lies only where the offence occurred or where the accused resides. Abuja meets neither condition,” IPOB stated, calling the current venue “forum shopping and a gross abuse of court process.”
The group also argued that the alleged offence—importation of a transmitter under the Customs and Excise Management Act (CEMA)—is statute-barred.
“The offence carries a five-year limitation period. More than five years have passed. This prosecution is legally dead on arrival,” the statement continued.
IPOB decried what it called the continued “illegal detention” of Kanu, who it claims has been held for nearly four years following his controversial rendition from Kenya—far exceeding any maximum sentence for the charge in question.
Describing a recent judicial inspection of a radio transmitter at DSS headquarters by Justice Omotosho as “media choreography,” IPOB said the move lacks legal basis, pointing again to the appellate ruling that all related matters should be tried in Awka.
“The entire proceeding has become a well-rehearsed media circus designed to generate headlines, not justice,” Powerful said. “The judiciary is being dragged into disrepute. Every illegal act in this matter only deepens Nigeria’s international embarrassment.”
He concluded by calling on the Nigerian government to discontinue the trial, warning that “injustice breeds chaos” and that no amount of “manufactured evidence” would obscure the truth.
