IPOB Rejects Alleged NMA Medical Report on Nnamdi Kanu, Warns Against Its Use in Court

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 has warned against presenting the document before the Federal High Court in Abuja during Kanu’s next appearance on Wednesday, October 8, 2025.

In a statement issued by Barrister Chukwuma Benson Ihejiofor on behalf of IPOB’s Legal Advisory Directorate, the organisation claimed the report, dated September 22, 2025, is “invalid, inadmissible, and ethically compromised.” It alleged that the document was produced before the court’s order authorising an independent medical evaluation and at the request of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF). IPOB accused 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 what it called legal defects in the report, 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. IPOB cited *Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000)* and *FRN v. Iweka (2013)* to support its argument that any act done outside judicial authorization is “void ab initio.”

The organisation also 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 be conducted under court supervision. Furthermore, it invoked Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, arguing that the NMA report was made in anticipation of litigation and is therefore inadmissible.

IPOB accused the NMA of breaching medical ethics by withholding the report from Kanu and his legal team 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 said. The group described the alleged concealment as a violation of Section 23(1) of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, which mandates 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. It further alleged that the NMA had “surrendered its independence and sullied the professional honfour of Nigerian medicine.”

The group warned that if the court admits the report, it would amount to “judicial complicity in executive deception.” It argued that no defendant can lawfully be required to defend against a document he has not seen or been served, citing the constitutional right to fair hearing under Section 36(6)(b) and (d) of the 1999 Constitution.

IPOB questioned why the report was prepared before the court’s directive, why it was not released to Kanu, and why the AGF, rather than the court, dispatched the NMA delegation. It said admitting the report would “desecrate the Constitution and turn the courtroom into a stage for dishonour,” vowing to treat the document as fraudulent and 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 examination of Kanu has been conducted, and any report prepared beforehand or withheld thereafter is unconstitutional. “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,” the statement concluded.