Reported by: Ijeoma G | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has declared that its leader, Nnamdi Kanu's former lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, remains sacked and accused him of sabotaging the group's leader's legal case, as a bitter public war of words escalates over who has the authority to represent the separatist movement. The group's强硬 statement, issued on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, by its spokesman, Comrade Emma Powerful, dismissed Ejiofor's claim of being reinstated as IPOB's counsel as "a worthless piece of paper" signed by expelled elements, and insisted that Kanu's decision to sack the lawyer stands.
The dispute began on July 22, 2026, when Kanu, writing from the Sokoto Correctional Centre where he is serving a life sentence, formally terminated Ejiofor's services as his personal lawyer and withdrew any authority previously granted to him to represent IPOB, his family, or the movement in any capacity . In the letter, which was notarized before a lawyer in Sokoto, Kanu stated that Ejiofor's engagement had earlier been terminated verbally and that the correspondence served as formal written confirmation of the decision . The IPOB leader grounded his authority to dismiss the lawyer in the movement's Code of Conduct and warned Ejiofor against disclosing any confidential information obtained during his years of representation .
Kanu accused Ejiofor of continuing to portray himself as legal representative of IPOB despite the withdrawal of his mandate . "Notwithstanding the foregoing, you have continued to hold yourself out, directly or indirectly, as legal representative of IPOB," the letter read. "From the date of this letter, you have no authority, implied, express, or ostensible, to act, speak, or make representations on my behalf, on behalf of my family, or on behalf of IPOB" . Citing Section II, Subsection A of the IPOB Code of Conduct, Kanu maintained that the power to appoint, suspend, or dismiss principal officers rests solely with the IPOB leader unless expressly delegated . He also directed Ejiofor to immediately cease making public statements, granting interviews, issuing press releases, or publishing social media posts on behalf of himself, his family, or IPOB .
Ejiofor, however, has rejected the premise of Kanu's letter. In a statement posted on his Facebook page on Monday, July 27, 2026, the lawyer insisted that he had voluntarily withdrawn from representing Kanu as far back as December 2023 — nearly three years before Kanu's directive . "For the avoidance of doubt, and for the sake of clarity, I wish to state unequivocally that I personally disengaged myself from the legal representation of Nnamdi Kanu in any capacity since December 2023, long before his eventual conviction and the subsequent sentence to life imprisonment," he said . Ejiofor argued that he had not acted as Kanu's personal counsel, family lawyer, or legal representative since then, and that his professional relationship with IPOB as an organisation could not be unilaterally altered by what he called its former leadership figures .
The lawyer further disclosed that IPOB had reaffirmed his law firm's status as the organisation's solicitors and legal representatives, insisting that the professional relationship remained valid and could not be altered by former leaders of the group . According to Ejiofor, his firm has, between December 2023 and 2025, secured the discharge and acquittal of more than 200 alleged IPOB members in cases before the Federal High Court in Abuja and the High Courts of Ebonyi and Abia states . He also questioned the authenticity of Kanu's letter, citing provisions of the Nigerian Correctional Service Act which require that communications originating from inmates bear the authentication of the officer in charge of the facility .
But IPOB has dismissed Ejiofor's claims outright. In a statement issued on Tuesday, the group said the letter Ejiofor cited as reaffirmation of his appointment was "a legal nullity" signed by Chika Edoziem, a former member who has since been expelled from the organisation . "It is a ridiculous absurdity for sacked and expelled individuals to gather and issue a letter of appointment in the name of IPOB," Powerful said. "In IPOB, you cannot give what you do not have. Expelled elements cannot hire or reinstate a lawyer under the name and authority of the very movement they were excommunicated from. That piece of paper is not only unethical; it is dead on arrival" .
IPOB further reiterated that under its Code of Conduct, only Kanu, as the group's Supreme Leader, holds the sole authority to appoint, suspend, or dismiss officers, including legal representatives . "Our leader, Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, is the indisputable Supreme Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra. By the clear tenets of our Code of Conduct (Section II, Subsection A), he possesses the sole authority to appoint, suspend, or dismiss officers, including legal representatives, unless he expressly delegates that power. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu sacked Ifeanyi Ejiofor, and he remains sacked" .
In its most damning accusation, IPOB directly blamed Ejiofor for Kanu's continued incarceration, describing his handling of the case as "a major reason Mazi Nnamdi Kanu remains in detention" . The group alleged that Ejiofor's failure to file a preliminary objection contesting a stay of execution it described as improperly issued allowed the legal process to be derailed, resulting in what it called the current legal quagmire . "We must remind the legal public and the world of the source of the current legal quagmire. Ifeanyi Ejiofor's monumental failure of professional duty is a major reason Mazi Nnamdi Kanu remains in detention. Had he performed his primary duty and filed a simple preliminary objection to the former AGF Abubakar Malami's perverse and illegal stay of execution, the course of this case would have been different," IPOB said .
Ejiofor, for his part, has also levelled serious allegations against his former client. He claimed that Kanu had, over the years, orchestrated blackmail campaigns against him and filed frivolous petitions before his professional disciplinary body . He also alleged that Kanu had sent "foot soldiers" after him and had made false accusations against him, including claims that he was romantically involved with Kanu's wife — an allegation Ejiofor described as "the most reprehensible and utterly unfounded and defamatory allegation" . Ejiofor insisted that he had always been guided by professional ethics and had no plans to divulge privileged information, while declining to directly address the sack letter, which he characterised as "hurriedly assembled correspondence" .
The public war of words between Kanu and his former lawyer marks a dramatic escalation in a relationship that has spanned over a decade. Ejiofor had represented Kanu and IPOB in numerous court cases since 2015 . The dispute has now drawn in the broader IPOB leadership structure, with the group firmly backing Kanu's decision and rejecting any claims of Ejiofor's reinstatement. The accusations of sabotage and betrayal are likely to deepen the legal and political complexities surrounding Kanu's case, which has been a source of intense national and international attention since his repatriation to Nigeria from Kenya in 2021. As the legal battle continues, Ejiofor remains adamant that he is still IPOB's lawyer, while IPOB insists he is sacked and accuses him of betraying the movement's leader. For now, the question of who legitimately represents IPOB in court remains unresolved, adding yet another layer of uncertainty to an already protracted legal saga.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments