Lawyer Condemns 20-Year Jail Term for Man Convicted Over Alleged IPOB Membership

A lawyer, Christopher Chidera, has criticised the 20-year prison sentence handed to Paul Okechukwu by a Federal High Court in Abuja over his alleged membership of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), describing the judgment as an abuse of judicial power.

Okechukwu was sentenced by Justice Hauwa Yilwa after being found guilty of belonging to the proscribed organisation. Reacting on Friday, Chidera, a member of the Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Defence Consortium, argued that the conviction raised questions about the legal basis for criminalising membership of the group.

Chidera alleged that the case reflected an attempt to suppress Biafran identity and self-determination. He questioned whether an administrative proscription order could replace the requirement for prosecutors to prove an offence under a valid written law.

The lawyer cited a March 2017 ruling by Justice Binta Nyako, which he said involved the striking out of six counts against IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu on the grounds that IPOB was not an unlawful society. He argued that a subsequent ex parte proscription order obtained by the government raised questions about the legal status of the group and the implications for individual prosecutions.

Chidera also challenged the use of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, arguing that the law had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. He alleged that the sentence imposed on Okechukwu relied on the repealed legislation and questioned whether that was consistent with Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, which provides constitutional safeguards relating to criminal offences and fair hearings.

The lawyer further argued that membership of an organisation should not, on its own, establish individual criminal responsibility without proof of the specific offence charged. He claimed that prosecutors had dropped a count relating to violent attacks against Okechukwu and proceeded on the membership allegation. The details of the charges and the court’s reasoning were not included in the supplied report.

Chidera urged Igbo youths and Biafran activists facing related allegations not to enter guilty pleas under pressure and called for access to independent legal representation. He alleged that some detainees had faced psychological pressure and inhumane conditions, although the report did not provide independent evidence to substantiate those claims.

The lawyer also raised questions about the validity of the proscription order, the application of the relevant terrorism legislation and the evidence presented against Okechukwu. He maintained that the prosecution must establish guilt under applicable law rather than rely solely on an organisation’s designation.

The court’s full judgment and a response from the prosecution or other relevant authorities were not included in the supplied report. Chidera’s statements therefore represent his legal and political criticism of the ruling, while the precise legal basis for Okechukwu’s conviction and sentence requires examination of the court record.