The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has released details of its Code of Conduct in an apparent attempt to settle the growing leadership crisis within the pro-Biafra movement, insisting that its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, possesses the exclusive authority to appoint, suspend and dissolve the Directorate of State (DOS), the group’s highest administrative organ.
The clarification comes amid a deepening internal dispute following Kanu’s decision to dissolve the third administration of the Directorate of State headed by Chika Edoziem and replace it with a new leadership team led by Chris Nwaogu.
The development has exposed divisions within the movement, with rival camps laying claim to legitimacy and constitutional authority.
The latest controversy began after Kanu reportedly announced the dissolution of the Edoziem-led Directorate of State and constituted what IPOB described as the fourth administration of the body.
Shortly afterwards, Edoziem issued a statement announcing the suspension of Kanu from his position as leader of the movement.
He argued that no individual had the authority to unilaterally dissolve the Directorate of State, which he described as IPOB’s apex leadership structure.
However, IPOB, through its spokesman, Emma Powerful, rejected Edoziem’s action, describing the purported suspension as illegal, unconstitutional and of no effect.
In a statement issued on Saturday, the group published provisions of its Code of Conduct, which it said clearly define the powers of the IPOB leader and the status of the Directorate of State.
According to the statement, the publication of the Code of Conduct was intended to address “once and for all” the controversy surrounding the dissolution of the third administration.
The statement quoted Section II, Subsection A of the Code of Conduct dealing with appointments and dismissals.
“The power to appoint, suspend or dismiss erring principal officers vest exclusively on the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu except and to the extent he clearly and expressly delegates that power to any other principal officer,” the statement said.
IPOB argued that once the leader exercises such powers, those affected are constitutionally required to comply immediately.
According to the group, there is no provision within its governing framework that allows dismissed officers to challenge, delay or reject decisions taken by the leader under his constitutional authority.
“Accordingly, the moment the dissolution of the third administration was announced, its tenure came to an end,” the statement said.
“Any continued claim to office thereafter ceased to derive from the IPOB Constitution and became a personal act undertaken outside the authority of the movement.”
The group insisted that the issue before members worldwide was not whether they agreed with Kanu’s decision but whether the movement’s constitution remained supreme.
“The issue before IPOB family members worldwide is therefore not whether they agree or disagree with the dissolution. The issue is whether the Constitution of IPOB remains supreme,” it added.
Providing further explanation, IPOB said appointments into principal offices within the movement are temporary and dependent on performance.
According to the statement, officers are initially appointed for six months and may have their tenure renewed based on satisfactory performance.
It added that such positions are voluntary and do not attract salaries or financial benefits.
“The dissolved third administration appears to have operated under the mistaken belief that its tenure was permanent and that the authority that created it lacked the authority to dissolve it,” the statement said.
“Nothing could be further from the truth.”
The group further stated that members of the dissolved administration were not founding members of IPOB and held their positions solely through appointments made under Kanu’s authority.
“It must also be noted that none of the members of the dissolved third administration is a founding member of IPOB. None occupied the offices they recently held by right. They occupied those offices solely by virtue of appointments made under the authority of the Supreme Leader,” it stated.
IPOB maintained that its Code of Conduct remains the supreme instrument regulating the affairs of the movement.
“The Indigenous People of Biafra Worldwide wishes to address, once and for all, the unfortunate and unnecessary controversy generated by the lawful dissolution of the third administration of the Directorate of State by the Supreme Leader of IPOB, Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu,” the statement said.
The group highlighted that no officer, department or administrative structure exists above the Code of Conduct.
It argued that the Directorate of State was created by Kanu to assist in the daily administration of the movement and ensure continuity of operations.
According to IPOB, the DOS derives its authority from both Kanu and the provisions of the Code of Conduct.
“The Directorate of State was not the institution that created IPOB. The Directorate of State was created by Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu as an administrative organ of IPOB to assist in the day-to-day management of the movement and to ensure continuity of operations across the world,” the statement said.
“It is not a sovereign body. It is not a co-equal authority. It is not a self-perpetuating institution.”
The group questioned the logic behind arguments suggesting that Kanu could establish the DOS but lacked the authority to dissolve or restructure it.
“The simple question every IPOB member must ask is this: if Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu possessed the authority to create the Directorate of State, by what logic does he lack the authority to dissolve, reorganise or reconstitute it?” the statement asked.
“The answer is obvious. The authority to create necessarily includes the authority to reform, restructure, replace or dissolve.”
IPOB insisted that the dissolution of the third administration remains constitutionally valid and binding on all its structures worldwide.
It said the fourth administration headed by Chris Nwaogu had already been properly constituted and had commenced operations.
The group warned that anyone continuing to exercise authority in the name of the dissolved administration would be acting outside the movement’s constitutional framework.
“Such conduct constitutes a disciplinary offence under the Code of Conduct and shall attract appropriate sanctions,” the statement warned.
The latest developments underscore the internal tensions currently facing the pro-Biafra movement, which has remained at the centre of national debate over separatist agitation in Nigeria.
As both camps continue to assert legitimacy, observers say the leadership dispute could shape the future direction of IPOB and influence its operations both within Nigeria and among its supporters abroad.
For now, the group insists that its constitution provides a clear answer: that the authority to appoint also includes the authority to remove, and that all members are bound by the decisions of the leadership as defined by its Code of Conduct.