Nnamdi Kanu has ‘exclusive authority’ to appoint, dissolve DOS – IPOB releases code of conduct

Amid the ongoing crisis in the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, the group has released details of its Code of Conduct, stressing that it gave Nnamdi Kanu the exclusive authority to appoint and dissolve the Directorate of State – the group’s apex administrative organ.

The crisis ensued after IPOB leader, Kanu, who is currently serving a life sentence in Sokoto prison following his conviction on terrorism charges by the Nigerian government, dissolved the 3rd Administration of the DOS, headed by Chika Edoziem. In its place, Kanu appointed a 4th Administration of the DOS led by Chris Nwaogu.

Following the development, Edoziem released a statement to announce that IPOB has suspended the Office of the Leader, held by Kanu.

But IPOB, in a counter statement by its spokesman, Emma Powerful, dismissed Edoziem’s action, describing the purported suspension as illegal, null and void.

To back up its argument that Edoziem and members of the dissolved 3rd Administration of the DOS cannot legally suspend Kanu, the group on Saturday published details of its Code of Conduct which stipulated that Kanu, as leader of the group, has the exclusive authority to appoint and dissolve the DOS.

Edoziem had, while announcing Kanu’s suspension as leader of the group, said no single individual has the authority to dissolve the Directorate of State – IPOB’s apex leadership structure.

The statement released by Powerful on Saturday stressed that details of the Code of Conduct was released to finally address the controversy trailing the dissolution of the Edoziem-led 3rd Administration.

The statement said, “The Code of Conduct provides under Section II, Subsection A – 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.”

According to the statement, once the “Supreme Leader” exercises the power of appointment, suspension, dismissal, or dissolution, every officer affected by that decision is under an immediate obligation to comply. It stressed that there is no constitutional mechanism within the IPOB Code of Conduct that permits a dismissed officer to veto, suspend, delay, review, or reject a decision lawfully made by the Supreme Leader pursuant to his exclusive constitutional authority.

“Accordingly, the moment the dissolution of the 3rd Administration was announced, its tenure came to an end. 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 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,” the statement said.

Explaining further, the statement noted that, according to provisions of the Code of Conduct, appointments are temporary and performance-based. Principal officers are appointed for an initial six-month period and may be renewed subject to satisfactory performance. Such appointments are voluntary and carry no salary or financial entitlement.

“The dissolved 3rd 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. Nothing could be further from the truth.

“It must also be noted that none of the members of the dissolved 3rd 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,” the statement further observed.

Asserting that the Code of Conduct is the supreme governing instrument of the pro-Biafra group, the statement said, “The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Worldwide wishes to address, once and for all, the unfortunate and unnecessary controversy generated by the lawful dissolution of the 3rd Administration of the Directorate of State (DOS) by the Supreme Leader of IPOB, Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

“Let it be clearly understood by all IPOB family members worldwide that the IPOB Code of Conduct is the supreme governing instrument of our movement. It is our Constitution. It defines our structure, regulates our conduct, establishes our hierarchy, and binds every member without exception.

“No officer, department, coordinator, representative, or administration exists above 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 DOS therefore derives its existence, authority, and legitimacy from the constitutional authority of the Supreme Leader and the IPOB Code of Conduct. It is not a sovereign body. It is not a co-equal authority. It is not a self-perpetuating institution.

“An administrative structure created by the Supreme Leader under the Constitution of IPOB cannot lawfully claim independence from the constitutional authority that established it. To suggest otherwise is to invert the very foundation upon which the Directorate of State was created.

“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 answer is obvious. The authority to create necessarily includes the authority to reform, restructure, replace, or dissolve. The same authority that appoints possesses the authority to remove. That is the law of IPOB. That is the Constitution of IPOB.”

The statement insisted that the dissolution of the 3rd Administration is constitutionally valid and binding on all IPOB structures worldwide, and not subject to review. It equally emphasized that the 4th Administration headed by Nwaogu has been duly constituted and is already fully operational.

It declared that any individual or group purporting to exercise authority under the dissolved 3rd Administration is acting without constitutional authority and outside the framework of IPOB. “Such conduct constitutes a disciplinary offence under the Code of Conduct and shall attract appropriate sanctions,” the statement warned.