IPOB: RULAAC petitions AGF, fears miscarriage of justice in conviction, prolonged detention of two men
The Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) has raised concerns over a possible miscarriage of justice in the cases of two men allegedly held over links to the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), urging the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, to order an independent investigation and review of their detention and prosecution.
The organisation’s Executive Director, Okechukwu Nwanguma, made the call in an urgent petition dated November 9, 2026, to the Attorney-General, detailing allegations of prolonged detention, unlawful re-arrest, torture, denial of access to legal representation and possible violations of fair hearing rights.
The petition concerns Azoribe Samuel Onu, who reportedly received a 20-year prison sentence, and Chidiebere Christian Ugwu, who remains in custody after pleading not guilty to charges before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
RULAAC’s intervention comes days after reports that the Department of State Services (DSS) released four men arrested in May 2022 over alleged IPOB membership after investigations reportedly cleared them of wrongdoing.
The DSS also approved an initial compensation of N20 million for the four men, amounting to N5 million each.
The development has renewed questions about the possibility of wrongful arrests and prolonged detention in cases involving alleged membership of the proscribed group, particularly where allegations are not supported by sufficient evidence.
RULAAC said the latest releases underscored the urgency of reviewing other cases involving people who might still be in custody despite insufficient evidence against them.
According to the petition, Onu was arrested by Nigerian Army personnel at Oduma, Aninri Local Government Area of Enugu State, on August 31, 2023, following an accusation that he was an IPOB commander.
He reportedly spent approximately 18 months at the Army’s 82 Division in Enugu before being transferred to the DSS Enugu State Command on February 28, 2025.
RULAAC said Onu reported appearing before a Magistrates’ Court in Enugu on April 29, 2025, where he was discharged.
However, the organisation alleged that DSS operatives immediately re-arrested him outside the court and returned him to custody.
He was subsequently transferred to DSS headquarters in Abuja on May 29, 2025, before being brought before the Federal High Court sitting in Asokoro on June 16, 2026.
According to his account, the court convicted him and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment.
RULAAC said certified court records were necessary to establish the precise terms of the Magistrates’ Court order, the legal basis for the reported re-arrest and the circumstances surrounding the subsequent conviction and sentence.
The organisation said the relationship between the proceedings in Enugu and Abuja required particular scrutiny to determine whether Onu’s rights were respected throughout the process.
In the case of Ugwu, RULAAC said he reported being arrested by DSS personnel on December 5, 2024, along Obollo Road in Obukpa, Nsukka, Enugu State.
He allegedly suffered repeated beatings at a DSS post in Oba and at the agency’s Enugu State Command, where he reportedly lost consciousness.
Ugwu further alleged that he was transferred to DSS headquarters in Abuja on December 17, 2024, where he was beaten again, sustaining injuries that affected his vision and caused bleeding from his ear.
The petition also alleged that he was denied access to his family and a lawyer for approximately 18 months and compelled to write statements without legal representation.
Ugwu reportedly appeared before the Federal High Court sitting in Asokoro, Abuja, on June 17, 2026, where he pleaded not guilty.
RULAAC said his charge sheet and prosecution records should be obtained to establish the specific allegations against him and determine whether his continued detention was legally justified.
The organisation called for an independent medical examination and urgent treatment for his reported eye and ear injuries.
Beyond the two cases, the rights organisation urged the Attorney-General to commission a time-bound review of other arrests, prosecutions and detentions involving alleged IPOB affiliation.
It called for relevant records from the DSS, Nigerian Army and Nigerian Correctional Service to be obtained and reconciled to establish the number of affected persons, their locations, custody histories and the legal grounds for their continued detention.
The proposed review, according to RULAAC, should prioritise people held for prolonged periods without charge or access to lawyers, individuals allegedly re-arrested after court orders and detainees who have reported torture or the extraction of statements under coercion.
It also urged the government to facilitate releases where no lawful basis for continued detention exists, while ensuring that pending prosecutions are supported by admissible evidence.
For people already convicted, the organisation called for access to certified court records and legal representation to enable them to pursue appeals or other available judicial remedies.
Citing Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution, RULAAC said the allegations raised concerns about the rights to dignity, personal liberty and fair hearing.
It also referenced Section 4 of the Anti-Torture Act 2017, which prohibits the use of statements obtained through torture, and Section 29 of the Evidence Act 2011, which governs the admissibility of confessions challenged on grounds including oppression.
RULAAC asked the Attorney-General to appoint investigators from outside the security units implicated in the allegations and ensure that both detainees are interviewed confidentially.
It also called for the immediate preservation of Army and DSS custody registers, arrest records, transfer documents, warrants, remand orders, original statements, recordings, medical records and available CCTV footage.
The organisation further urged the DSS Director-General and the Chief of Army Staff to secure relevant records and make personnel available to independent investigators.
It said appropriate prosecution or disciplinary action should follow where investigations establish wrongdoing.
