By Kingston Magare 28.7.2026
Counsel to Nnamdi Kanu during his trial on terrorism charges at a Federal High Court in Abuja, Ifeanyi Ejiofor has laughed at claims by the jailed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), leader he no longer retains his services.
Kanu in a letter dated July 22, 2026 had made it public that Mr. Ejiofor was no longer in his corner. But writing on his Facebook page Tuesday Mr. Ejiofor stated that he stopped being a Kanu lawyer since 2023, but was hanging on as IPOB counsel.
“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.
“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 noted that Kanu did not appoint him as his personal lawyer,
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.”
All the same he expressed doubts if the letter came 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.