Connect with us

News

IPOB lawyer blames Igbo leaders’ silence for Ekpa’s atrocities in South-East

Published

on

A human rights lawyer and counsel for the Indigenous People of Biafra, Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, has said that the recent conviction and sentencing of Simon Ekpa by the Paijat-Hame District Court in Finland has once again exposed the strange blood and devastation flowing through the South-East region.

In a press statement released on Wednesday, Ejiofor blamed Igbo leaders and the political class in the region for their silence since Ekpa was convicted, saying their “silence or covert association gave oxygen to Ekpa’s fire” of unleashing atrocities in the region.

He described Ekpa as “a serial fraudster masquerading as a liberator”, whose actions have led the South-East to bleed profusely from the devastation and carnage unleashed by him and his foot soldiers.

He titled the press statement, ‘Strange blood in Ala-Igbo, when the pen becomes deadlier than the sword’, the lawyer lamented after every bloody outing by his foot soldiers. Ekpa mounted his online pulpit not to console or condemn, but to celebrate each atrocity.

According to him, for years the South-East region has bled profusely from the devastation and carnage unleashed by Ekpa and his foot soldiers, adding that no family, clan or kindred has been spared.

The statement read in part, “The recent conviction and sentencing of Simon Ekpa, a serial fraudster masquerading as a liberator, by the Päijät-Häme District Court in Finland on 1 September 2025, has once again torn the veil and exposed the strange blood flowing through parts of Ala-Igbo.

“While some carried out atrocities with machetes and guns, others, perhaps more dangerous, have inflicted a worse sacrilege with their tongues and keyboards: the promoters, the apologists, the social-media enablers who have glorified crime and cloaked terrorism in the false garment of agitation.

“Our political class is no less complicit. Many so-called leaders, by their silence or covert association, have given oxygen to Ekpa’s fire. Tell me: how many Igbo politicians have publicly spoken about his conviction? Their lips are sealed; their consciences bought by cowardice, complicity or convenience. But that, perhaps, is a tale for another day.

“Still, the central question remains: for how long shall Ndi Igbo live under the tyranny of fear? How many more mothers must wail before our elites rise to their responsibility? How many graves shall be dug before truth is spoken with courage? Evil thrives where good men keep silent, and today’s silence will be tomorrow’s complicity.

“Permit me to remind you: I personally took Simon Ekpa to court in Nigeria to challenge his falsehoods and defamatory crusade. The case subsists.

He was duly served with originating processes; yet, as is his character, he chose lies, deception and manipulation to mislead his gullible followers, including those who should know better.

“What deepens the wound is that, after every bloody outing, Ekpa mounted his online pulpit not to console or condemn, but to celebrate. He glorified the fear his agents sowed, boasted of their ‘successes’, and urged yet more terror. Today, his cheerleaders online clap for him and defend the indefensible, even when he posts grisly evidence of executions and barbarism on Igbo soil. Can such horrors ever find a place in a genuine agitation for freedom?”

He insisted that IPOB’s Directorate of State has publicly and repeatedly denounced Ekpa, distanced the global peaceful movement from his acts, and made clear that his conduct was not theirs.

He said a massive protest was organised, supervised, and carried out in Finland by the Directorate of State, adding that a strongly worded petition was also submitted to the Finnish Government, detailing the heinous activities of Simon Ekpa and affirming that he has no affiliation whatsoever with the peaceful global movement, and investigations were opened.

“Ndi Igbo in Finland faced scrutiny over his activities. Yet some among us shamelessly ignore these facts, preferring instead to elevate Simon’s lies above truth and reason.

“I will never lend my voice to fraud, nor will I keep silent while impostors deceive our people with poisonous gospel under the guise of liberation.

“Let it be clearly stated that the struggle for Biafra is divinely ordained; no mortal can quench that flame. The right of indigenous peoples to self-determination is recognised under international law, and indeed enshrined within Nigerian law. That right is sacrosanct and inalienable. But the method matters. A just cause cannot be pursued with unjust means.

“Igbo land has lost thousands of promising youths because of false prophets preaching violence. Yes, leadership failure in Nigeria created fertile ground for vulnerability, but murder, kidnapping and terror can never be the balm for our pain. They are crimes, condemned both before God and before man.

“To those who dance to Simon’s drumbeat online, let me sound a solemn warning: the same fire you fan today may consume you tomorrow. Many before you have already fallen victim to this evil pattern. It is only a matter of time.

“The struggle must be purified. The methodology must be interrogated. The character of those who lead must be weighed. And the blood of the innocent must never again be shed in the name of freedom.

“For years, the South-East region has bled profusely from the devastation and carnage unleashed by Ekpa and his foot soldiers. No family, clan or kindred has been spared. Nearly every household has a story, a brother butchered, a sister shot, a mother abducted, a friend or even a distant relative gruesomely murdered. The rivers of blood that have flowed across our land are not abstract tales; they are personal tragedies etched into the memories of Ndi Igbo,” the statement concluded.

Earlier, the Federal Government of Nigeria had indicated it may seek the repatriation of Simon Ekpa following his six-year prison sentence in Finland for terrorism-related offences.

Ekpa charges include participation in a terrorist organisation, incitement to commit terrorist crimes, aggravated tax fraud, and violations of the Lawyers Act.

The court found that between August 2021 and November 2024, Ekpa sought to promote the independence of the Biafra region through illegal means, using social media to gain influence and playing a key role in founding armed separatist groups designated as terrorist organisations.

The trial spanned 12 sessions, with the verdict delivered unanimously by three judges.

Speaking to The PUNCH on Monday, Information Minister Mohammed Idris said the government would “assess the situation and take decisions in the best interest of the country” regarding Ekpa’s repatriation.

Attorney General Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) also stated that further steps would be taken once the judgment is officially reviewed. Ekpa denied all charges against him.

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Was government’s hyper reaction to Sowore’s protest necessary?

Published

on

When Omoyele Sowore, the publisher of Sahara Reporters and activist, announced a protest in Abuja for the release of Nnamdi Kanu, few expected it to draw such a heavy-handed response from the Nigerian government. Yet, on October 20, when the protest was scheduled to be held, the police descended on the protesters as if they were enemies of the state. The sight of armed officers arresting citizens who were simply exercising their constitutional right to peaceful protest sent a disturbing message: Nigeria’s space for free expression is shrinking fast.

That this happened under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s watch makes the event even more disappointing. For decades, Tinubu stood as one of Nigeria’s most vocal opposition figures. He fought military dictatorship, demanded democracy, and benefited immensely from the freedoms that civil society and the media struggled to secure. Even as a governor, he opposed the presidency of Olusegun Obasanjo and gained the sympathy of most Nigerians. As an opposition leader of the APC, he led protests against the presidency of Goodluck Jonathan. To see his government now turning against those who dare to speak or march peacefully is both ironic and painful.

The use of excessive force against peaceful protesters is not new in Nigeria. From the #EndSARS movement in 2020 to other smaller demonstrations, the APC administration has increasingly treated dissent as a crime. In the case of Muhammadu Buhari, his background as a military person and a dictator made it easier to understand. But for Tinubu, who has never been a military person and was a vocal opposition leader for decades, it has been disappointing.

What stands out in this case is the hypocrisy of those in power. The ruling All Progressives Congress rode to power on promises of freedom, reform, and respect for citizens’ rights. Many of its leaders, like Tinubu, Senator Adams Oshiomhole, and Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, participated in protests and spoke passionately about the importance of free speech and accountability.

Now, when ordinary citizens use the same democratic tools, the state responds with intimidation and arrests. This is not the democracy Nigerians were promised.

Every democracy recognises the right to protest as a key pillar of freedom. It is not a favour granted by the government. In Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly are clearly protected. Citizens do not need permission to voice their concerns.

I don’t need to agree with Sowore’s views. But it is his right to organise a protest. It is the right of Nigerians to choose whether to join the protest or not. The duty of the police is to be present to monitor the protest and ensure that hoodlums don’t hijack it.

When people like Sowore and others gather to demand justice or call attention to issues, they are not committing a crime. They are simply practising democracy by holding leaders accountable. A confident government that truly believes in its legitimacy should not feel uncomfortable with peaceful protests. Instead, it should listen, engage and respond with maturity. Using threats and excessive force against unarmed, peaceful protesters is the hallmark of a dictatorship. If a government spokesperson had addressed the protesters, that would have taken the wind out of the sails of the protest.

Tinubu’s rise to prominence came through his activism and opposition to military rule. As a member of the National Democratic Coalition in the 1990s, he fought for democracy and free expression. Those were noble struggles, and history rightly remembers Tinubu and his colleagues as heroes of democracy.

But history also judges what leaders do when they gain power. The measure of a true democrat is not how loudly he demands freedom when he is out of power, but how much of that freedom he protects when he is in power. By that measure, the Tinubu government’s record so far is worrying.

It is noteworthy that Sowore’s protest went beyond Nnamdi Kanu; it also highlighted the government’s double standards. On one hand, the government negotiates with bandits who come to meetings with guns and rocket launchers; on the other hand, the government arrests and detains those who protest with no weapons.

Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, has been detained since June 2021. He is facing trial on charges of treasonable felony and terrorism-related offences. Many Nigerians disagree with his methods and his vitriol. However, they believe he deserves a fair and speedy trial. Keeping him in detention indefinitely and refusing to obey court orders on him only deepens resentment and fuels division.

Sowore has positioned himself as a symbol of resistance against government excesses. The government has played into his hands by displaying intolerance. He has been arrested multiple times since 2019 for leading protests, yet he continues to speak up. Whether one agrees with his politics or not, his courage in the face of repression reflects the stubborn spirit of Nigerians who refuse to be silenced.

A government that hates dissent or crushes it loses moral authority. It portrays the government as insecure. The strength of any democracy does not lie in how it treats those who agree with it, but in how it treats those who disagree. When the government sees every critic as an enemy, it creates fear rather than loyalty.

Nigeria is already facing enormous challenges, which include economic hardship, insecurity, youth unemployment, and declining trust in public institutions. Silencing dissent will not solve these problems. On the contrary, it will worsen them. Citizens who cannot speak will find other, less peaceful ways to express their anger.

When the APC came to power in 2015, many Nigerians hoped for a new era of accountability and freedom. The party’s leaders criticised the previous government for corruption and intolerance. Yet, after over a decade in power, the APC has become worse than what it once opposed.

Under Tinubu, there was hope for renewal, given his history as a pro-democracy activist. But the early signs suggest a continuation of the same authoritarian tendencies that marked the Buhari years. The clampdown on protests, the arrests of journalists, the disregard for the Constitution in the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, and the rising fear among citizens to speak freely point to a democracy that is losing its soul. Today, the separation of powers that should exist among the legislature, executive and judiciary has vanished.

Although President Tinubu seems focused on securing a second term by all means necessary, there is still time to change his attitude toward dissent. Nigerians are easy to satisfy. Saying the right words and carrying out the right actions will easily see millions of opponents move to his side. Umaru Yar’Adua achieved it by acknowledging that the election that brought him in was faulty and showing the people that he was on their side. Tinubu can start by instructing security agencies to respect the rights of protesters and journalists. It is also crucial to release those detained for peaceful demonstrations and allow citizens to express themselves without fear.

Nigeria suffered for decades under a dictatorship. In 1999, it celebrated its return to civilian rule. This is not the type of democracy Nigerians fought for. Nigeria deserves a government that listens and not one that fears its people. True democracy is not about silencing the crowd and pressuring every opponent to become a supporter. It is about hearing the cry of the people and taking steps to stop the cry.

X: @BrandAzuka

Continue Reading

News

Sowore regains freedom after four days in Kuje prison

Published

on

Human rights activist and former presidential candidate of the African Action Congress, Omoyele Sowore, regained his freedom on Monday after spending four days in the Kuje Custodial Centre, the Federal Capital Territory.

Sowore confirmed his release on his verified X (formerly Twitter) handle on Monday, writing, “HAPPENING NOW: Leaving Kuje Prison in Abuja after being detained there illegally for four days by @officialABAT, illegal IGP, Kayode Egbetokun. #FreeNnamdiKanuNow.”

The activist was among 14 people arrested by the Nigeria Police Force last week over the #FreeNnamdiKanuNow demonstration in Abuja.

Those detained included Aloy Ejimakor,  special counsel for the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, and Kanu’s younger brother, Emmanuel Kanu.

The spokesperson for the Nigerian Correctional Service FCT Command, Adamu Duza, confirmed Sowore’s release to our correspondent on Monday evening.

“Yes, Sowore has been released, along with 13 others who were arrested during the protest. He was granted bail,” Duza said.

The protesters were arraigned last Friday on charges of unlawful assembly and disturbance of public peace, before a Kuje Magistrate’s Court presided over by  Abubakar Said.

In his ruling, Sai’id granted each defendant bail in the sum of N500,000, with additional requirements, including the presentation of a verified National Identification Number, submission of a three-year tax clearance certificate, and the deposit of their passports.

After meeting these conditions, Sowore and the other defendants were released from Kuje Prison.

Sowore had been arrested last Thursday shortly after attending a court proceeding involving the IPOB at the Federal High Court in Abuja.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

News

Terrorism: Judge begs Nnamdi Kanu in ‘God’s name’ to consult lawyers

Published

on

Proceedings in the terrorism trial of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, took a dramatic turn on Monday, as the trial judge resorted to begging the defendant “in the name of God Almighty to consult properly,” before proceeding to defend himself.

Noting that Kanu had earlier fired his lawyers and opted to defend himself,  Justice James Omotosho stressed that he needed to consult legal experts because “this is not economics; this is criminal prosecution.”

“I am begging you in the name of God Almighty to consult properly,” the judge pleaded. “I am inclined to granting you the adjournment you seek.”

“I know you are educated, but you are not a lawyer. You need to consult experts in the field. Please make adequate consultation. This is not economics; this is criminal prosecution. Please, my brother, make adequate consultation. Criminal cases are not like other cases. I took the opportunity to explain to the defendant because he is not a lawyer,” the judge stressed.

Kanu is being prosecuted on seven counts of terrorism before the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The court had on Friday adjourned till Monday for him to open his defence, after Kanu had submitted a list of 23 witnesses he intended to call.

Kanu said he needed an adjournment till Monday because his former legal team, led by a former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), had yet to release his case file to him.

The IPOB leader expressed readiness to open his defence in a written application to the court, in which he indicated his intention to call witnesses and requested the issuance of witness summons.

Following his request, at the resumed sitting on Monday, the court reserved about five seats in the courtroom, each labelled “Summoned Witness,” in anticipation that Kanu would open his defence.

When the case was called, the Federal Government’s counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), announced his appearance, while Kanu identified himself by name and stated that he was representing himself.

Afterwards, Awomolo informed the court that the business of the day was for the defendant to open his defence.

Responding, Kanu, who initially sat in the dock, stood up and stated that he had gone through the case files and discovered that the charges were unlawful.

He argued that since the prosecution had failed to establish any case against him, there was no need to proceed with his defence.

“There is actually no charge against me,” he said.

Kanu further argued that there was no extant law in the country upon which the prosecution could premise its case.

“There is no case against me. If there is no case against me, it will be futile for me to enter any defence,” he added.

At that point, Justice Omotosho intervened and explained to Kanu that in a criminal trial, the defendant has three options after the prosecution closes its case.

He said the first option is for the defendant to make a no-case submission, and if the court overrules it, the defendant is required to enter a defence.

The judge added that where a defendant chooses not to open a defence, he may decide to rest on the prosecution’s case and file a written address, to which the prosecution will reply, after which the court will deliver its judgment.

After listening to the judge’s explanation, Kanu reiterated: “My position is that there is no charge against me. There is no need for me to enter a defence. What I am saying is that there is no case against me.”

Justice Omotosho then reminded him that he had earlier ruled on Kanu’s no-case submission and held that he had a case to answer, noting that the ruling still subsists.

Kanu subsequently applied for a week’s adjournment to enable him to file a written address in support of his argument that no valid charge was pending against him, claiming he was being subjected to an unnecessary trial.

He said: “I need a week to file a written address to the effect that there is no charge against me. If there is no extant law in Nigeria on which the charge could stand, there cannot be a case. You must please release me today or grant bail.”

Responding, Awomolo said that based on the defendant’s statement and the option he had taken, the court should adjourn for judgment.

“I take it that the defendant has said he is not putting in any defence because there is no valid charge against him,” Awomolo submitted.

“I want to submit that this position is conclusive of the defendant’s defence. I know that he took a plea to counts against him and pleaded not guilty. We led evidence, and he cross-examined our witnesses. Now that he says he has no defence, the case has been brought to a close,” the prosecution added.

Awomolo noted that at this stage, there was only one option for the defendant, adding that if Kanu’s objection was to be treated as his defence, the prosecution would respond, and the court would subsequently deliver its judgment.

He explained that Kanu’s current position implied that he had opted to address the court on points of law as his defence.

In his intervention, Justice Omotosho observed that the defendant was not entirely saying he had no defence, but rather that the charge against him could not stand.

He said: “That is also a form of defence. In that case, he will have to put that down in a written submission, which will be served on the prosecution, who will then respond.”

The judge then advised Kanu to consult experts before deciding on how to proceed.

“There is a need for you (Kanu) to consult people who are knowledgeable in criminal prosecution to advise you on how to proceed,” the judge said.

“I am begging you in the name of God Almighty to consult properly. I am inclined to granting you the adjournment you seek.

“I know you are educated, but you are not a lawyer. You need to consult experts in the field. Please make adequate consultation. This is not economics; this is criminal prosecution. Please, my brother, make adequate consultation. Criminal cases are not like other cases. I took the opportunity to explain to the defendant because he is not a lawyer,” Justice Omotosho added.

The trial judge said he has a duty to explain to the defendant the consequences of his decision not to enter a defence.

He added that after Kanu dismissed his legal team, the court had considered referring the case to the Legal Aid Council or any lawyer willing to take it pro bono, but Kanu declined, insisting that he would defend himself.

“Even at that, I still have a duty to explain the consequences of his option to him because he is not a lawyer. Please, make consultation,” the judge said.

The court granted Kanu four days from Monday to file his written address and serve the prosecution to enable it to file its reply.

Justice Omotosho then adjourned the matter till November 4, 5, and 6 for either the adoption of written addresses or for Kanu to open his defence, should he decide to change his mind.

punch.ng

FOLLOW US ON:

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PINTEREST

TIKTOK

YOUTUBE

LINKEDIN

TUMBLR

INSTAGRAM

Continue Reading

Trending