The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has rejected what it described as a “purported medical report” allegedly prepared by the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) on the health condition of its detained leader, Nnamdi Kanu.
The group warned against tendering the alleged purported NMA medical report before the Federal High Court, Abuja, during Kanu’s appearance on Wednesday, October 8, 2025.
In a statement signed by Barrister Chukwuma Benson Ihejiofor on behalf of the IPOB Legal Advisory Directorate, the group alleged that the document, dated September 22, 2025, is “invalid, inadmissible, and ethically compromised,” adding that it was produced before the court’s order authorizing an independent medical examination and at the instance of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).
According to IPOB, the report violates both judicial authority and medical ethics, accusing the NMA of colluding with the AGF and the Department of State Services (DSS) to manipulate evidence and obstruct justice.
“The report predates the judicial order for an independent medical evaluation, was never released to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu as promised by the NMA, and was allegedly prepared at the behest of the Attorney-General of the Federation. This conduct violates both judicial authority and medical ethics,” the statement read.
The group outlined several legal defects it said render the report inadmissible, citing “temporal illegality,” “absence of judicial supervision,” and “violation of the Evidence Act.”
It argued that since the document was created before Justice Omotosho’s directive for an independent medical evaluation, it cannot retrospectively satisfy that order.
Citing Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) and FRN v. Iweka (2013), IPOB noted that any act done outside the timing or scope of judicial authorization is “void ab initio.”
The group further referenced Section 46(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, which, it said, requires that any medical examination intended for evidentiary purposes must be conducted under court supervision.
Additionally, IPOB invoked Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, arguing that the purported NMA report was made in anticipation of litigation and therefore inadmissible.
IPOB further accused the NMA of breaching medical ethics by withholding the report from Kanu and his lawyers despite assurances.
“On September 23, 2025, the Vice-President of the NMA personally assured Kanu and his family that the report would be handed to him that evening. Yet, as of today, October 7, 2025, no such report has been delivered,” the statement noted.
It described the alleged concealment of the report as a violation of Section 23(1) of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, which obligates medical practitioners to maintain transparency with patients.
“To prepare a medical report at the request of a litigant (the AGF), then withhold it from the patient while plotting to tender it in court, is a breach of both law and conscience,” IPOB stated.
The group added that the NMA had “surrendered its independence and sullied the professional honour of Nigerian medicine.”
IPOB warned that if the court proceeds to admit the report, it would amount to “judicial complicity in executive deception.”
“No defendant can lawfully be required to defend himself against a document he has neither seen nor been served. Such a process violates the foundational principle of audi alteram partem, that no person should be condemned unheard,” it said.
IPOB cited Section 36(6)(b) and (d) of the 1999 Constitution which guarantees the right to fair hearing and adequate facilities for defence.
The group questioned why the report was prepared before the court’s directive, why it was not released to the defendant, and why the AGF, rather than the court, dispatched the NMA delegation.
IPOB cautioned that admitting the report would “desecrate the Constitution and turn the courtroom into a stage for dishonour,” insisting that it would treat the document as fraudulent and pursue all lawful means to challenge its admissibility.
“Admitting this report would amount to judicial endorsement of executive fabrication. It desecrates the Constitution and imperils the integrity of the judiciary and the independence of the medical profession,” the group warned.
According to IPOB, “No lawful, court-supervised medical re-examination of Kanu has been conducted. Any report prepared before or concealed thereafter is inadmissible and unconstitutional. The defence will object to its admissibility and demand an inquiry into the NMA’s role.”
IPOB stressed, “A report that predates the judicial order and is concealed from the Defendant is a nullity. To tender it is to mock the law; to admit it is to betray justice.
“Let the world bear witness that IPOB stands unwavering, peacefully, lawfully, and firmly, for truth and justice in the case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.”