Nnamdi Kanu
After five years of theatrics surrounding his trial, a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja has sentenced the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment after convicting him on all the offences contained in the seven-count terrorism charge.
Daily Sun reports that Justice James Omotosho sentenced him to life imprisonment in relation to counts one, two, four, five, and six of the seven-count charge in which he was prosecuted by the Federal Government.
For count three, relating to the offences of belonging to a proscribed terrorist group, Justice Omotosho, the report said, sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment without an option of fine.
On count seven, bordering on his unlawful importation of a radio transmitter for the purpose of furthering the clandestine activities of Radio Biafra, which is not registered in Nigeria, the judge sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment without an option of fine.
The judge, who noted that Kanu had been unruly throughout the trial, said the law allowed the court to sentence him to death for the terrorism offences, but that he (the judge), as a Christian, chose to be merciful to the defendant.
Justice Omotosho ordered that the defendant be kept in protective custody in any part of the country, but not in Kuje Prison, Abuja, and that the radio transmitter be forfeited to the Federal Government.
Before pronouncing his sentence, Justice Omotosho held that the prosecution led sufficient credible evidence to establish its case against Kanu.
The judge said the court had no option but to believe the evidence as led by the prosecution since the defendant failed to enter his defence, but chose to gamble by resting his case on that of the prosecution.
Kanu was convicted of violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2013, which carries the death sentence.
Justice Omotosho found him guilty of breaching the terrorism law in several broadcasts he made in which he threatened the corporate existence of Nigeria and promoted the breakaway of the South-East region from Nigeria to form the Biafra nation.
Kanu was said to have made it clear that Somalia would be a paradise unless the Biafra nation was granted.
In one of the interviews he granted Sahara Television, the convict was said that nothing would be living in a zoo called Nigeria by the time he executed his secession threat.
He also said that the only language people in the zoo (Nigeria) understand is violence and would be given to them.
In the interview, Kanu, who claimed to be founder and director of Radio and Television of Biafra, made a broadcast to the effect that the Army of Nigeria would die and everything called Nigeria would perish in Biafra.
At the Igbo World Congress in the United States of America, Kanu also stated at the occasion that there would be a blood boom. America would give us guns and bullets. We are ready to perish unless they give us Biafra.
Justice Omotosho in the judgment said that the allegations against Kanu were proved beyond reasonable doubt going by the avalanche of exhibits tendered against him.
The judge held that the convict did not help the matter when he bluntly refused to enter a defence in the charges against him.
According to the judge, Kanu knew what he was doing while making the reckless violent statements in his numerous broadcasts.
After his judgment convicting Kanu, the prosecution counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, urged the court to sentence him to the maximum punishment of the death penalty.
Awomolo said more than 75 security personnel lost their lives due to the terrorism activities of Kanu, his groups, and followers, while many other innocent Nigerians were also killed and public property destroyed.
Awomolo said subjecting Kanu to the maximum punishment would serve justice to all the victims of his acts of terrorism.
Meanwhile, in the absence of the convict, the lawmaker representing his constituency, Hon. Obi Aguocha, representing Ikwuano/Umuahia Federal Constituency at the House of Representatives, made an allocutus (a plea for leniency made by a convict before his punishment) on his behalf.
He urged the court to be lenient with Kanu and to temper justice with mercy.
The theatrics surrounding Kanu’s case started in 2015 when the IPOB leader was arrested and subsequently arraigned in court by the Nigerian government over allegations of terrorism and treasonable felony, defamation, managing an unlawful society, and illegal possession of firearms, among other charges. After the arraignment, Kanu was granted bail on stringent conditions, but he fled the country after his residence was invaded by security operatives. In March 2018, an amended indictment was prepared against him in absentia.
In June 2021, the Nigerian government, in collaboration with its Kenyan counterpart, abducted and extradited Kanu from Kenya to Nigeria, an action that attracted widespread criticism as being in disregard of the countries’ respective local laws, international laws, conventions, and treaties.
Following his re-arrest in Kenya, the indictment against him was amended on three further occasions: first on 13 October 2021 and 20 October 2021, when it expanded from four charges to seven charges; and then on 17 January 2022, when it expanded again to cover 15 charges. Kanu pleaded not guilty to all charges.
He challenged his extradition by instituting both civil and criminal proceedings in Nigeria and Kenya against the respective governments. In a 13-page judgment delivered on 24 June 2025, over one of the civil suits, Justice E. C. Mwita of the High Court in Nairobi, Kenya, declared Kanu’s extradition illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and unconstitutional and, in consequence, awarded 10 million Kenyan shillings in damages to Kanu against the Kenyan government for its role in the unlawful abduction and rendition.
That decision mirrored the earlier position of the Federal High Court, Umuahia, on 26 October 2022. In that case, Justice Evelyn Anyadike held that the extradition was unconstitutional and illegal and ordered the Nigerian Government to pay N500 million damages to Kanu.
Similarly, on the criminal matter, Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court, Abuja, dismissed eight of the 15 amended charges against Kanu on 8 April 2022. And on 13 October 2022, the Court of Appeal dismissed the outstanding seven charges.
Oludotun Adefope-Okojie of the Court of Appeal stated, inter alia: “…By the forcible abduction and the extraordinary rendition of Mr Kanu from Kenya…in violation of international laws and state laws, the lower court or indeed any court in this country is divested of jurisdiction to entertain charges against Mr Kanu and I so hold.”
However, the Supreme Court overturned the judgment on 15 December 2023, ordering continuation of the trial. The apex court acknowledged the illegality of Kanu’s rendition but held that such an unlawful act has not divested any court from proceeding with the trial. It maintained that: “Our law is that evidence illegally obtained is valid before the court. A violation of Mr Kanu’s right should have been by way of civil proceedings.”
The resumed hearing had a turbulent take-off and has been marred with diverse disruptions largely instigated by Kanu, the defending party. The situation deteriorated to the point that Justice Binta Nyako, who had been presiding over the trial, recused herself at the instance of the defendant. She was not the only judge who handled the case and excused herself at a point. Justice Mohammed, the first judge to preside over the initial arraignment in December 2015, recused himself.
Before Justice Nyako’s final disengagement from the case, she had earlier recused herself, only for the Chief Judge to return the file to her. Justice John Tsoho had sat over the case and recused himself before becoming the Chief Judge. The current judge, Justice James Omotosho, took over the case in March this year. Kanu openly accused the judges, including Omotosho, of bias and poor knowledge, which stalled the proceedings. Kanu mostly raised his objections on grounds of fair hearing and the jurisdictional competence of the court, which, however, dismissed them for want of merit.
But Kanu has remained resolute. In a letter addressed to Justice Omotosho dated 28 October 2025, titled “Dismissal of prosecution of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu for lack of jurisdiction”, Kanu’s international counsel, Bruce Fein (a U.S. national), threatened that the judge would be ‘legally implicated’ in the crime allegedly committed by the Nigerian government (over the continuous detention and prosecution of his client) if he refused to dismiss the case. The letter raised questions on the propriety and motive of a lawyer to write directly to a judge presiding over a live case.
However, when the trial eventually progressed to the defence stage, Kanu disengaged his legal team and elected to self-defend but persistently refused to file his statement of defence until the court threatened to foreclose his right to defend the suit.
