The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has denied allegations that it plans to resume enforcement of the Monday sit-at-home order across the South-East, describing a purported police intelligence report dated October 9, 2026, as fabricated.
In a press statement issued on Monday, October 12, IPOB spokesperson and Media and Publicity Secretary, Comrade Emma Powerful, said the organisation had no plans to enforce any sit-at-home order in the region or Imo State.
The group, led by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, rejected the allegations contained in a document reportedly bearing reference number CB:4089/FID/INTLAB/FHQ/ABJ/VOL.14/231, which was attributed to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police in charge of the Force Intelligence Department.
IPOB described the document as an attempt to mislead the public and divert attention from Kanu’s position on Biafra’s self-determination, which the group said was reiterated during the American Veterans of Igbo Descent (AVID) Annual Convention held in Duluth, Georgia, from October 9 to 11, 2026.
IPOB Denies Sit-at-Home Enforcement Directive
According to Powerful, IPOB remains opposed to attempts to associate the organisation with the enforcement of sit-at-home orders.
The group maintained that its struggle for Biafran self-determination was political and should be pursued through peaceful means.
It also denied the existence of any voice note or directive from IPOB or the Eastern Security Network (ESN) ordering a resumption of sit-at-home enforcement in the South-East.
The organisation challenged the authorities to provide verifiable evidence linking the alleged directive to its leadership or members.
However, the authenticity of the disputed intelligence report and the allegations attributed to the police could not be independently established from IPOB’s statement alone.
Group Raises Concerns Over Security Operations
IPOB further alleged that the circulation of the purported intelligence report followed the withdrawal or redeployment of security personnel from some parts of the South-East.
The organisation claimed that the development could be part of a pattern in which alleged security threats were circulated before subsequent incidents were blamed on the Biafra movement.
The group, however, did not provide independent evidence to substantiate its allegations concerning security agencies or establish the circumstances surrounding the disputed report.
IPOB called on the Nigeria Police Force to present verifiable evidence supporting the claims, including the original recording of the alleged voice note, its source and the identity of the speaker, where ascertainable.
It also demanded an explanation of the basis for linking the alleged message to IPOB or ESN.
IPOB Reiterates Election Boycott Position
The pro-Biafra group also criticised the Federal Government and the Imo State Government, accusing them of focusing on what it described as propaganda rather than adequately addressing challenges such as hunger, unemployment and insecurity.
IPOB additionally condemned the continued detention of its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, which it described as illegal.
Reaffirming its position on upcoming elections, the organisation said it remained committed to a total election boycott.
It insisted that neither the disputed intelligence report nor the alleged voice note would change its position on the planned boycott.
The group maintained that attempts to associate it with criminal activities or sit-at-home enforcement should be supported by credible evidence.
IPOB Challenges Police to Provide Evidence
IPOB urged the police to make the evidence behind the alleged intelligence report available for proper scrutiny rather than rely on claims it considers misleading.
The organisation maintained that it had no plan to resume sit-at-home enforcement and rejected suggestions that it had issued fresh instructions to compel residents to remain indoors on Mondays.
The statement was signed by Comrade Emma Powerful, spokesperson and Media and Publicity Secretary of IPOB, on October 12, 2026.
As of the information contained in the statement, the authenticity of the purported police report, the existence of the alleged voice note and the claims attributed to security authorities remain unverified. The police’s response would be necessary to clarify the origin and basis of the disputed allegations.
Post a Comment