Nnamdi Kanu Holds Sole Authority to Appoint or Dismiss DOS, IPOB Issues Code of Conduct

Amid the ongoing crisis within the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), the group has released its Code of Conduct, emphasizing that Nnamdi Kanu holds exclusive authority to appoint and dissolve the Directorate of State (DOS), the organisation’s top administrative body.

The crisis began when IPOB leader Kanu, who is currently serving a life sentence in Sokoto prison after being convicted of terrorism by the Nigerian government, dissolved the third administration of the DOS, headed by Chika Edoziem. Kanu then appointed a fourth administration led by Chris Nwaogu.

Following this move, Edoziem issued a statement announcing that IPOB had suspended the office of the Leader, held by Kanu.

IPOB’s spokesman, Emma Powerful, countered Edoziem’s claim, describing the alleged suspension as illegal, null and void. To support this position, the group published its Code of Conduct on Saturday, which states that Kanu, as leader, has exclusive authority to appoint and dissolve the DOS.

Edoziem, in announcing Kanu’s suspension, said no single individual could dissolve the Directorate of State – IPOB’s apex leadership structure.

The statement released by Powerful on Saturday clarified that the Code of Conduct was issued to resolve the controversy surrounding the dissolution of the Edoziem‑led third administration.

The statement quoted the Code: “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.”

It added that once the “Supreme Leader” exercises the power of appointment, suspension, dismissal, or dissolution, every affected officer must immediately comply. The Code contains no mechanism that allows a dismissed officer to veto, suspend, delay, review, or reject a decision lawfully made by the Supreme Leader under his exclusive authority.

“Accordingly, the moment the dissolution of the 3rd Administration was announced, its tenure ended. 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 statement said.

“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 continued.

Further explanation noted that, per the Code, 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,” the statement observed.

It added that none of the members of the dissolved 3rd Administration is a founding member of IPOB and that they occupied their offices solely by virtue of appointments made under the authority of the Supreme Leader.

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 also emphasised 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.