The leadership crisis rocking the foundation of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), on Friday, deepened following the resignation of Uche Mefor as deputy leader to Nnamdi Kanu.
Mefor threw in the towel after his post was abolished by Kanu.
Head of Directorate of State (DOS), Chika Edoziem, accused Mefor of “insubordination and disobedience” to constituted authorities in the organization, particularly to the IPOB leader.
Mefor, according to Edoziem, was “instructed by our leader to be attending his unit meetings in London and pay his monthly dues as everyone else does, but he disobeyed this simple instruction from his leader with the excuse that he as the deputy leader will neither attend unit meetings or pay monthly dues because he is entitled to same privilege accruing to Nazi Nnamdi Kanu as leader of IPOB worldwide.”
He said the office of deputy leader of the IPOB “is abolished with immediate effect and ceases to be a part of the IPOB leadership structure.”
He added: “Henceforth, nobody should be referred to as the deputy leader of IPOB. Throughout the history of freedom fighting, there is nothing like deputy leader.”
Meanwhile, counsel to Kanu, Alloy Ejimakor has, explained why Kanu did not appear in court for his treason trial on Thursday.
He said until a hearing is conducted on why the military allegedly invaded his client’s home in 2017, he should not be expected to appear in court for the treason trial.
His lawyer, who was represented in court by another lawyer, claimed the court notice was very short.
But in an interview with THE WHISTLER, Kanu’s lawyer said he was absent because he needed to be assured of his security.
He said: “Nnamdi Kanu didn’t appear because he is not in Nigeria. And his trial in absentia is open to question. It shouldn’t happen.
“Our position is that the court should have conducted a hearing as to why Nnamdi Kanu has repeatedly failed to appear in court. If that enquiry is conducted, it will bring to the fore what happened in September 2017.
“And it will give an opportunity to introduce evidence in the proceedings to demonstrate why nobody under such circumstances should be expected to appear in court because the army went in there to kill him.
“I don’t know what the court expected him to do– to stay here and be killed and be brought to court, or what?
“If someone is on bail, such a person is under the protection of the court. And now, an agency of the same government that is prosecuting this man sent its armed forces to this man, to kill this man. And 28 men were killed.
“The court is not making an enquiry into that, and they are solely concerned about proceeding with his trial in absentia. It shouldn’t happen in a well-ordered system. We just have to get to the root: why did he not appear in court? That is the question.
“If it is settled, it will be determined on whether he jumped bail of which no conclusion like that will ever be reached.
“If the court makes such inquiry, it will also give the court an opportunity to determine what happened in 2017. Then they can tell Mr Kanu to come and face your trial in court because the court will give you protection.
“When that is done, he will come. I guarantee he will come.
“Once the court makes a pronouncement on why he is not there and makes a ruling, then he will appear. But this court is not doing that. If they proceed with absentia trial, the international community will see it as kangaroo.”
