Human Rights Lawyer Slams Tinubu Over 1st October Prejudicial Remarks Against IPOB and Nnamdi Kanu
Abuja, Nigeria – October 5, 2025
A human rights lawyer, Barrister Christopher Chidera, has condemned President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Independence Day remarks equating the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) with Boko Haram, describing them as a “reckless violation” of constitutional principles and judicial integrity.
In a strongly worded press briefing issued on October 2, Chidera accused the President of prejudicing ongoing court proceedings involving IPOB and its detained leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, thereby undermining the independence of Nigeria’s judiciary.
Chidera argued that President Tinubu’s remarks amount to a flagrant breach of Section 36(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. He emphasized that as the sitting Head of State, Tinubu’s comments carry institutional weight capable of influencing judicial officers and shaping public perception against the accused.
By labelling a self-determination movement as a terrorist organization while the courts are still deliberating on the issue, the President, he said, had “desecrated the temple of justice and trampled upon the sacred principle of presumption of innocence.”
The human rights advocate also drew parallels between Tinubu’s comments and those previously made by former President Muhammadu Buhari, who in 2017 publicly declared that Nnamdi Kanu would not be granted bail despite pending legal proceedings.
Chidera described this pattern as a “recurring disease of the Nigerian presidency,” where successive leaders show disdain for judicial restraint. He stressed that executive power cannot coexist with contempt for the judiciary, warning that such utterances erode both domestic and international confidence in Nigeria’s democracy.
In his conclusion, Barrister Chidera called on the judiciary and civil society to resist executive interference and uphold the rule of law. He urged Kanu’s legal team to raise the matter before local and international tribunals, citing precedents such as R v. Sussex Justices and Incal v. Turkey, which condemn executive labelling of accused persons during pending trials. “The world is watching,” he warned, adding that the President’s speech represented “a disgrace to his office and an affront to Nigeria’s constitutional democracy.”
Full Text of the Press Brief by Barrister Christopher Chidera
PRESS BRIEF BY BARRISTER CHRISTOPHER CHIDERA, HUMANRIGHTS LAWYER & PUBLIC ADVOCATE ON PRESIDENT BOLA AHMED TINUBU’S PREJUDICIAL UTTERANCES AGAINST IPOB AND Mazi NNAMDI KANU
Date: 2nd October 2025.
INTRODUCTION
On Nigeria’s 65th Independence Day, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, committed a most egregious violation of constitutional decorum and judicial sanctity by equating the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) with Boko Haram terrorists. This reckless declaration, made in the full glare of a national broadcast, has struck at the very heart of the rule of law, mocked the principle of fair trial, and exposed the fragile state of Nigeria’s democracy.
Tinubu’s Words: Prejudicial and Contemptuous
Tinubu’s utterance was not an innocent aside, nor a mere flourish of political rhetoric. It was a calculated branding of a people’s self-determination movement as indistinguishable from one of the most blood soaked terror groups in West Africa. This was not only prejudicial—it was contemptuous of the courts of law presently seized of IPOB and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s cases.
The Federal High Court in Abuja, before Justice James Omotosho, is presently presiding over Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s trial.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria is actively considering IPOB’s appeal against its proscription.
For the President to denounce IPOB alongside Boko Haram while these matters are sub judice is nothing less than a crude attempt to predetermine judicial outcomes from Aso Rock.
An Executive Assault on the Right to Fair Trial
Section 36(1) of the Nigerian Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal. Tinubu’s utterances are a dagger thrust at this guarantee. By his words, the Head of State has cast the Defendant and his movement into the pit of public opprobrium before their judges have spoken.
Let it be emphasised: freedom of speech under Section 39 does not immunise such misconduct. The President of Nigeria is not a private citizen with a right to barroom chatter; he is the Chief Executive whose pronouncements weigh upon the judiciary like the sword of Damocles. When he speaks in condemnation of a litigant before the courts, he desecrates the temple of justice and imperils the independence of the Bench.
A Recurring Disease of the Presidency
This is not the first time. Former President Muhammadu Buhari made similar prejudicial remarks against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. Then, astonishingly, Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court held that the President was merely exercising his freedom of speech. That ruling was an aberration: it subordinated the non-derogable right to fair trial to a derogable right to free expression.
Tinubu has now seized upon that per incuriam reasoning to indulge in the same executive misconduct. But history will not excuse him. The fact that Buhari sinned against the Constitution does not legitimise Tinubu’s trespass. Two wrongs cannot make a right; they only deepen the wound of injustice.
Why This Cannot Stand
In every serious democracy, the principle is clear: Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done (R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256). No justice can be seen to be done where the President of the Republic has already pronounced a group guilty in the eyes of the world.
In comparative jurisprudence:
The European Court of Human Rights in Incal v. Turkey (1998) condemned executive labelling of accused persons as terrorists during pending trials as a breach of fair trial rights.
Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, binding on Nigeria, prohibits such executive interference.
Nigeria cannot claim to be a constitutional democracy while the Head of State openly traduces pending judicial proceedings with prejudicial utterances.
A Call to Resist Executive Contempt
President Tinubu’s Independence Day speech was a disgrace to the office he holds. It was unguarded, prejudicial, and contemptuous of the courts. It must be condemned without equivocation.
The defence of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and IPOB must now, as a matter of urgency, challenge this brazen executive interference before both domestic courts and international tribunals. The Nigerian judiciary, if it still cherishes its independence, must rise above executive intimidation and affirm its loyalty to the Constitution rather than to Aso Rock.
The world is watching. Nigeria is on trial. The question is whether we are still a nation governed by laws or a polity enslaved by the reckless tongue of its rulers.
Barrister Christopher Chidera
Human Rights Lawyer & Public Advocate
