By Uchenna Ezeadigwe
Awka
Spokesperson, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)
Comrade Emma Powerful on 6 July 2026 stated that the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) notes with relief the release of Emeritus Professor Martin Aghaji, renowned cardiothoracic surgeon and personal physician to our leader, Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, following his detention by the Department of State Services (DSS).
Professor Aghaji was reportedly taken during a midnight operation at his Enugu residence, moved through Abuja to Lagos, and released only after sustained pressure from our legal team and the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA).
According to Powerful, “We commend our lawyers for their swift intervention and appreciate the principled response of the NMA. The detention of a respected medical professional for expressing his independent medical opinion raises serious concerns about the safety and independence of professionals connected to this case.
According to IPOB, the intimidation of Professor Aghaji reflects a broader pattern allegedly faced by legal and medical practitioners associated with Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case, including harassment, detention, threats, and attempts to influence judicial proceedings.
Central to these concerns is what IPOB describes as a significant irregularity involving the medical report ordered by the court. On 26 October 2025, Justice James Omotosho directed the President of the NMA to constitute a panel of medical experts to examine Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and submit a report to the court.
IPOB maintains that no such examination was conducted, no NMA-appointed panel was constituted, and Professor Aghaji, as the patient’s personal physician, was neither informed nor involved.
Yet a medical report dated 23 October 2025 three days before the court order was subsequently presented.”
“IPOB argues that this timeline raises fundamental questions that deserve thorough judicial scrutiny and form a central issue in the appeal before the Court of Appeal.
IPOB further contends that the pressure allegedly exerted on Professor Aghaji was intended to suppress or alter his independent medical opinion regarding the health of Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.”
The organisation also challenges the legal basis of the conviction, maintaining that Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was convicted under legislation that had already been repealed. IPOB argues that this issue, together with the disputed medical evidence, raises serious questions about the integrity of the proceedings and should receive careful consideration by the appellate court.
Given these developments, IPOB calls on the international community, human rights organisations, and governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, and other interested stakeholders to closely examine the records before the Court of Appeal.
“We urge observers to review the documented timelines, the circumstances surrounding the disputed medical report, and the legal issues raised in the appeal.
IPOB maintains that the outcome of this case carries significant implications for public confidence in Nigeria’s justice system and the rule of law.”
“We therefore reiterate our call for transparency, accountability, and the unconditional release of Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.”
