Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has been sentenced to life imprisonment for terrorism charges by the Federal High Court in Abuja. Presiding judge, James Omotosho, found Mr. Kanu guilty on all seven counts preferred against him by the Nigerian government, delivering a 144-page judgment over five hours on Thursday.

The charges against Mr. Kanu stemmed from his agitation for the secession of the South-east and parts of the South-south from Nigeria to form an independent state of Biafra. Specifically, he was convicted of terrorism offenses including issuing death threats, inciting violence against security personnel, ordering the destruction of government facilities and foreign embassies via online broadcasts. He was also found guilty of issuing and directing the enforcement of an unlawful stay-at-home order on Mondays across the South-east, which led to attacks and killings of violators. For these specific offenses, he received a life sentence. Additionally, Mr. Kanu was jailed 20 years for being a member of IPOB, which was designated a terrorist organization and proscribed in 2017. A five-year sentence was handed down for smuggling a radio transmitter into Nigeria in 2015 to further Radio Biafra’s operations. The court ordered that Mr. Kanu be prevented from accessing mobile devices and broadcast equipment, except under security supervision.

The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, presenting tons of recordings of Mr. Kanu’s online broadcasts from 2018 to 2021 as evidence, which remained uncontroverted. Judge Omotosho stated that Mr. Kanu was never denied a fair hearing as he claimed, noting that he offered no credible defense and deliberately refused to challenge the evidence. His claims of inadequate facilities to prepare his defense and unlawful extraordinary rendition from Kenya also did not stand. While acknowledging the Supreme Court’s ruling that Mr. Kanu’s rendition was “unfair and oppressive,” the judge emphasized that it does not invalidate his trial for the alleged offenses. Mr. Kanu’s argument that the charges were brought under the repealed Terrorism Prevention Act 2013, instead of the 2022 Act (which became operational in May 2022, after his alleged offenses between 2018 and 2021), was dismissed as a mark of ignorance of the law by the judge, citing Section 98(3) of the new law that allows pending proceedings to continue.

Aloy Ejimakor, a member of Nnamdi Kanu’s legal team, described the life sentence as “a huge surprise” and a conviction “based solely on words allegedly uttered from outside Nigeria, not on any physical act committed on Nigerian soil.” Ejimakor stated that the judgment relied on “misguided prosecutorial policy” and “speeches extrapolated into crimes,” warning that this approach fuels alienation in the Southeast and deepens perceptions of sectional justice. He criticized the court’s reliance on recordings prosecutors claimed were broadcasts from the United Kingdom during the EndSARS protests, noting that Lagos and Abia panels never indicted Kanu or IPOB for EndSARS deaths. Ejimakor also highlighted the absence of any confessions from thousands of detained IPOB members linking Kanu’s speeches to violence or terrorism. He further condemned the court’s referencing of remarks allegedly made by Kanu in the United States as far back as 2014, linking them to a death in Nigeria nine years later. Regarding Kanu’s dismissal of his lawyers, Ejimakor insisted it was a deliberate decision in a “politically charged case,” believing Kanu could do a better job than lawyers constrained by decorum.

Ejimakor argued that the case was prosecuted differently from similar matters in northern Nigeria, suggesting a prosecutorial policy focused on Kanu perhaps due to his region, contrasting it with an engagement-based counter-terrorism policy in the North. He warned that perceptions of unequal treatment heightened tensions in the Southeast. Ejimakor welcomed references to Kanu’s case in a US Congressional hearing, where it was described as “a travesty of justice,” seeing it as an opportunity for the Nigerian government to intervene politically. He cited historical precedents like Awolowo’s 1963 treason conviction and Mandela’s release as examples of political decisions overturning or mitigating controversial convictions, urging for an urgent and necessary political solution to address the sense of exclusion and alienation.

Residents of the South-east have expressed outrage, disappointment, and anger over the conviction. Emeka Mamah, an Enugu State resident, faulted the judgment as a “political conviction,” arguing the issue should have been resolved outside the courtroom, similar to how Yoruba Nation agitator Sunday Adeyemo (Sunday Igboho) was released without trial. He warned that if the conviction stands, it could lead to the emergence of similar agitators due to perceived marginalization and injustice in the South-east. Chris Asor, chairperson of Civil Society Organisations in Anambra State, expressed disappointment, stating that Nigeria missed an opportunity to resolve the Biafran agitation and heal civil war wounds, suggesting the mindset among many South-easterners is that the civil war has not ended. Meshack Nwachukwu of Ebonyi State found the conviction infuriating and disappointing, fearing it could worsen insecurity in the region. Benjamin Ohadoma in Imo State described the conviction as “very, very unfair,” believing it did not represent justice and was predetermined.

IPOB, through its spokesperson Emma Powerful, also faulted the conviction, asserting that Mr. Kanu did not commit any crime known to Nigerian law, highlighting that no weapons or attack plans were ever found on him, and no witness testified to him committing any offense. Powerful claimed the Nigerian government continues to criminalize self-determination, a right guaranteed under local and international laws. He also criticized the lack of accountability for security personnel who invaded Kanu’s family house in 2017, while the system prosecutes the victim. IPOB reaffirmed its commitment to peaceful advocacy, international law, and a United Nations–supervised referendum, vowing to engage global institutions to condemn the “judicial absurdity.”