NEWS
Nnamdi Kanu Affirms Dissolution of IPOB’s 3rd Administration, Declares New DOS Leadership Fully Operational
The Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has reaffirmed the dissolution of the movement’s 3rd Administration of the Directorate of State (DOS), declaring the action constitutionally valid and binding on all IPOB structures across the globe.
Kanu maintained that the dissolution remains a final constitutional decision and is not subject to review, reversal, or challenge by any officer, department, administration, or organ within the movement.
The clarification follows growing controversy and debates among some members of the organization regarding the lawful dissolution of the 3rd Administration of the Directorate of State by the IPOB leader.
In a statement issued by Kanu through IPOB’s Spokesperson and Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful, the movement announced that the 4th Administration of the Directorate of State, headed by Chris Nwaọgụ, has been duly constituted and is already fully operational.
The statement directed all IPOB structures worldwide to recognize and cooperate with the newly constituted administration in the discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
IPOB further warned that any individual or group attempting to exercise authority under the dissolved 3rd Administration would be acting outside the constitutional framework of the movement and without lawful authority.
According to the statement, such actions amount to disciplinary offences under the organization’s Code of Conduct and may attract sanctions.
The group consequently called on members across the world to remain calm, disciplined, focused, and committed to the constitution of the movement as well as the leadership of Kanu.
Explaining the constitutional basis for the decision, IPOB emphasized that its Code of Conduct remains the supreme governing instrument of the movement and serves as the foundation upon which all structures, offices, and authorities derive their legitimacy.
The statement noted that every member, regardless of rank or responsibility, remains subject to the provisions of the Code of Conduct.
“No officer, department, coordinator, representative, or administration exists above the Code of Conduct.The Directorate of State was not the institution that created IPOB,“ he said.
The statement further explained that the Directorate of State was established by Kanu as an administrative organ to oversee the day-to-day operations of IPOB and ensure continuity of activities across various countries and regions where the movement operates.
Emma Powerful added that the Directorate of State derives its authority and legitimacy from the constitutional powers of the Supreme Leader and the IPOB Code of Conduct, stressing that it is neither a sovereign institution nor an independent authority.
“An administrative structure created by the Supreme Leader under the Constitution of IPOB cannot lawfully claim independence from the constitutional authority that established it,“ he said.
According to the statement, any contrary interpretation would undermine the very constitutional foundation upon which the Directorate of State was created.
The spokesperson argued that if the IPOB leader possessed the constitutional authority to establish the Directorate of State, then the same authority naturally extends to dissolving, restructuring, reorganizing, or replacing it whenever necessary.
He said the question every IPOB member should consider is whether the authority that created the institution can be denied the authority to reform it.
The statement maintained that the answer remains self-evident because the power to create inherently includes the power to restructure or dissolve.
He said: “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 further stressed that all affected officers are constitutionally obligated to comply immediately whenever the Supreme Leader exercises such powers.
He said: “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.
“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.”
According to IPOB, the tenure of the dissolved 3rd Administration effectively ended the moment the dissolution was announced, and any subsequent claim to authority falls outside the provisions of the movement’s constitution.
The organization argued that the central issue is not whether members agree or disagree with the decision but whether the constitution of IPOB remains supreme and binding on all members.
The statement emphasized that a movement governed by rules cannot selectively apply its constitution, insisting that constitutional authority must be respected both during periods of agreement and disagreement.
Addressing the tenure of principal officers, the spokesperson explained that appointments within IPOB are temporary, performance-based, and voluntary.
He said: “The Code further provides that 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. Accordingly, no officer acquires a proprietary interest in any office within IPOB.
The statement maintained that members of the dissolved administration appeared to have mistakenly assumed their tenure was permanent and beyond the authority of the leadership that appointed them.
It further noted that none of the officials of the dissolved 3rd Administration were founding members of IPOB and that they occupied their positions solely through appointments made under the authority of Kanu.
He said: “the same authority that appoints, possesses the authority to remove. That is the law of IPOB. That is the Constitution of IPOB’.
In conclusion, Emma Powerful stated that IPOB operates strictly on constitutional order, discipline, and adherence to established rules, stressing that the movement does not function on the basis of political ambition, factional interests, office preservation, entitlement, or power struggles.
According to him, constitutional supremacy remains the guiding principle of the organization and the foundation upon which all its structures and authorities are built.