Ifeanyi Ejiofor, a former counsel to Nnamdi Kanu, the convicted leader of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has responded to his disengagement by the IPOB leader. PREMIUM TIMES earlier reported that Mr Kanu, through a letter dated 22 July, informed Mr Ejiofor that he had been disengaged as his lawyer. The IPOB leader also warned the lawyer to refrain entirely from making any public statements on his behalf, his family, or the separatist group, or from acting as his or IPOB’s legal representative.
‘I withdrew as your counsel, but I remain IPOB’s lawyer’
Reacting in a statement posted on his Facebook page on Tuesday, Mr Ejiofor said he had long disengaged himself from serving as Mr Kanu’s legal representative.
“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.
The lawyer, however, said he remains the legal representative for IPOB despite disengaging as Mr Kanu’s lawyer.
“In the exercise of our professional rights and responsibilities as legal practitioners, we have, throughout the relevant period, remained in effective and continuous retainership as solicitors to the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB),” he said.
Mr Ejiofor noted that, in his capacity as IPOB’s lawyer, he and his team had “diligently and professionally” discharged their responsibilities. The lawyer said the team has secured the discharge and acquittal of over 200 people accused of being members of IPOB in several high courts across Nigeria between December 2023 and 2025.
“For the avoidance of doubt, Nnamdi Kanu never independently appointed us as attorneys to the IPOB. His limited involvement in our appointment was solely in his capacity as his personal lawyer, from which we had, since December 2023, formally disengaged our services,” he said, stressing that he has not represented him since then.
Conflicting leadership changes
Mr Ejiofor also attached to the statement a letter addressed to him and signed by Chika Edoziem, leader of the third Directorate of the State (DOS) of the IPOB.
PREMIUM TIMES reports that Mr Kanu recently dissolved IPOB’s DOS, led by Mr Edoziem, and appointed another person to the position, before Mr Edoziem subsequently announced Mr Kanu’s suspension as IPOB leader, which is confusing.
In the letter dated 27 July 2026 and titled “Reaffirmation of appointment as IPOB legal representative,” Mr Edoziem announced the reappointment of Mr Ejiofor as IPOB legal representative. The leader of the dissolved IPOB DOS claimed his reappointment followed his re-emergence as the group’s directorate leader and the suspension of Mr Kanu as the group’s leader.
“This letter of appointment as IPOB’s general legal counsel not only renews your brief as legal representative for the Indigenous People of Biafra, but also overrides and replaces the initial letter of appointment dated 2nd May 2017, taking the present leadership structure of IPOB into account,” the factional DOS leader said in the letter.
Meanwhile, Mr Ejiofor also attached a letter of his initial appointment as IPOB legal representative to the statement. The initial appointment letter was dated 2nd May 2017 and signed by Mr Kanu, identified as IPOB leader; the then Deputy Leader, Uche Mefor; and Mr Edoziem, identified as head of IPOB’s DOS.
The lawyer, in the Tuesday statement, justified his insistence on remaining IPOB’s lawyer by citing the latest reappointment letter, signed solely by Mr Edoziem.
“It is equally important to place on record that IPOB, as an organisation, has today reaffirmed our standing as its solicitors and legal representatives. That professional relationship is founded upon a continuing mandate and cannot be retrospectively altered, invalidated, or otherwise dictated by its former leaders,” he said in reference to the reappointment letter.
Is Nnamdi Kanu’s communication authentic?
Mr Ejiofor questioned the authenticity of Mr Kanu’s communication from Sokoto prison, arguing that the Nigerian Correctional Service Act provides how a communication from a convict or an inmate might be duly authenticated.
“Any communication purportedly emanating from an inmate, whether a convicted prisoner or a person awaiting trial, must bear the imprimatur and appropriate authentication of the officer in charge of the relevant correctional centre. This requirement is intended to ensure the authenticity, integrity, and proper verification of such communication,” he said, suggesting that Mr Kanu might not have authored the communication authorising his disengagement.
