Kanu’s Conviction: Life Jail as Punishment for Terrorism Acts

Leader of the Proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, could have escaped life imprisonment and even terrorism conviction if he had entered his defence in the terrorism allegations brought against him by the federal government, writes Alex Enumah.

Although, counts one, two, four, five and six of the terrorism charge against leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), MaziNnamdiKanu, carries the maximum death penalty upon conviction, however, it could be argued that Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja, could have delivered a lesser sentence, if the defendant had comported himself and took the several warnings and opportunities provided him, to get experts in criminal laws to handle his defence.

Justice Omotosho had in a judgment last Thursday found Kanu guilty on all seven count charge bordering on terrorism, upon his conclusion that the prosecution has “proved beyond reasonable doubt”, its case against MaziKanu.

The judgment on Thursday finally drew the curtains over the 10 years legal battle at the Federal High Court. The Department of State Services (DSS) had first arrested Kanu inside a Lagos hotel in October 2015 and subsequently brought him to Abuja, where he was first arraigned at a Magistrate Court in Wuse, on November 23, 2015 on charges bordering on criminal conspiracy, intimidation and membership of an illegal organization. The federal government then took the case to the Federal High Court, Abuja, where Kanu was arraigned alongside two others on a six-count charge bordering on treasonable felony. He was first arraigned before Justice Ahmed Mohammed (now Justice of the Court of Appeal), then Justice John Tsoho (now Chief Judge of the Federal High Court), then Justice BintaNyako and finally Justice James Omotosho.

Recall that the Biafra separatist agitator had accused all four justices of bias and insisted he cannot be tried for terrorism allegations. But, Omotosho in his judgment last week held that Kanu was wrong in deploying the tool of terrorism in pursuit of his Biafra republic. “Any self-determination not done in accordance with the constitution and laws of this country will be illegal. The Defendant is not only agitating for secession of the states of the South East, South South and some Middle Belt states, he is doing so using terrorism as a weapon”.

After his extraordinary rendition from Kenya in 2021, Kanu was re-arraigned before Justice Nyako on a 15-count amended charge. He submitted a no-case submission through his lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN) and the court dismissed eight out of the counts and ordered him to enter his defence in the remaining seven.

However, the federal government appealed the judgment and the appellate court in its judgment quashed the remaining seven count and discharged Kanu, on the grounds of his unlawful extraordinary rendition to Nigeria. But, the Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court in its 2023 judgment, wherein it held that although Kanu was illegally brought to the country, he must conclude his criminal trial at the Federal High Court.

The apex court subsequently ordered that Kanu stand trial on the remaining seven count charge that Nyako held he has questions to answer. But, following several accusations of bias, Justice Nyako later recused herself from the matter in 2024, paving the way for the case to be handed over to Omotosho in March this year.

Before Omotosho, the DSS had called five witnesses and tendered bundles of documentary and video evidences to prove that Kanu committed acts of terrorism through his broadcast on social media platforms which led to the deaths of many Nigerians in the Southeast.

The videos included several broadcast of the Biafra nation agitator issuing various threats to Nigerians, including the enforcement of sit-at-home orders to residents of the Southeast region. Other video evidences included occasions where the IPOB leader described Nigeria as a Zoo; issued threats against security personnel as well as threatened the destruction of public infrastructure including banks, schools and police stations.

However, after the DSS closed its case against the defendant, Kanu refused to open his defence until the court foreclosed him and fixed judgment for November 20. The IPOB leader both in his oral and written arguments insisted that the court lacked the jurisdiction to try him on terrorism allegations. He had anchored his claim on grounds including; lack of fair hearing; that his extraordinary rendition invalidate the charge against him; and that the law on which the charge against him was filed has been repealed.

But, Omotosho in his verdict disagreed with the defendant on all the grounds, recalling how he even pleaded with the defendant to enter his defence. On the issue of extraordinary rendition, the court told the defendant that he was already standing trial before he jumped bail and fled the country, adding that the manner of his rearrest and re-arraignment cannot stop his trial. Similarly, the court held that the amended Terrorism Prevention Act 2022, cannot invalidate the trial, since the Terrorism Prevention Act 2013, was still in force when the charge was filed in 2015. Besides, the court explained that Section 98(3) of the Act ensures that amendment does not affect the validity of trial begun under the repealed Act.

In its verdict, Omotosho held that the defendant was guilty as charged in all seven counts and subsequently sentenced him to life imprisonment. The judge explained that Kanu deserved death going by all the atrocities he caused but, he was mindful to show him mercy. In count one, which carries the maximum punishment of death, the court cited several instances where Kanu had in his broadcast threatened violence and death if the people of Biafra were not allowed to go peacefully from Nigeria.

Omotosho also found Kanu guilty in count two which borders on making broadcast with intention to threaten members of the public with sit-at-home, especially in the five Southeastern states. According to the judge, prosecution witnesses testified that due to Kanu’s threat of violence many banks, markets and churches were grounded.

He quoted the defendant as issuing a threat in his broadcast of May 30, 2021, wherein Kanu said, “tomorrow…there is complete lockdown… nobody should be seen outside tomorrow…if you want to be alive don’t come out tomorrow…we will burn you inside that shop, etc”.

The judge concluded that the sit-at-home orders issued by Kanu are “unconstitutional” and “amounts to nothing more than a terrorist act”.

Similarly, the court found the defendant not only guilty of belonging to a proscribed group (IPOB), but being the leader of the group.

The court further convicted Kanu in counts four, five and six, which borders on making a broadcast encouraging members of the public to kill Nigeria security officers including the personnel of the Nigeria Police Force.

According to the judge, the prosecution proved that Kanu by his many broadcasts incited his followers to violence which resulted in the killing of security personnel, including Mr Ahmed Gulak, a former aide to former President Goodluck Jonathan, and the destruction of several properties, including police stations across the country.

Similarly, the court found Kanu guilty in count seven which borders on illegal importation of a radio transmitter into the country and sentenced him accordingly.

Since the judgment reactions have been pouring in, with some condemning the judgment, stating that it further attested to the marginalization against the Igbo ethnic group. They pointed to incidents in the northern parts of the country where Nigerians including security personnel are daily killed with impunity by bandits, kidnappers, Boko Haram, among others.

But, taking a second look at the trial one could argue that Kanu’s conviction and sentencing could have been avoided if he had not sacked his lawyers and opted to handle his case himself, especially when he was not a trained lawyer. For about five consecutive days, the court appealed to the defendant to open his defence and also engage legal practitioners, Kanu was however adamant.

Recall that Kanu had in 2023 sacked Ozekhome who had argued his case up to the appellate court where he was discharged. He had also sacked Chief KanuAgabi (SAN) after his loss at the Supreme Court.

When the matter resumed before Justice Nyako in 2024, he was represented by MrAloyEjimakor but, Agabi again took over his defence in 2025 when it was reassigned to Omotosho.

However, the pro-Biafra agitator on October 23, 2025, took the court and everyone by surprise when he disengaged his counsel and decided to represent himself. At one of the proceedings the judge had stood down the case and called court registrars into the courtroom, to enable Kanu file some motions in respect of his defence.

Despite several appeals by the judge and warnings that criminal matters are quite different from civil cases where a litigant can opt not to engage a counsel, Kanu continued to file processes and argue his case from the dock. This no doubt impacted on the outcome of the trial.

It is arguable that the outcome of the trial may have been different if Kanu had given his own side of the case, either by personally giving evidence or calling witnesses to speak in his favour. Recall that the IPOB leader had listed over 20 witnesses including a former Minister, Lt General TheophilusDanjuma (rtd), who had repeatedly called on Nigerians to defend themselves against insurgents, to testify on his behalf.

While the court had issued summon to all the subpoenaed witnesses Kanu listed in one of his applications he filed in his defence, he surprisingly abandoned calling any, asking the court to release him on grounds that the charge against him was not valid because it was premised on a repealed law.

One can conclusively say that this singular decision of not entering his defence was fatal to his case, as evidenced in the judgment of the court.

“With respect to the substantive issue, I must start the resolution by outlining the effect of the defendant in failing to put in his defence despite several opportunities afforded him by this court”, Omotosho stated.

According to the judge, in a criminal trial, the defendant has three options available to him upon the closure of the case of the prosecution. “He has the options of making a no case submission to argue that the prosecution has not made out a prima facie case against him to warrant him entering his defence or that the evidence led by the prosecution so far has been so discredited under cross examination that it would be unsafe for the court to convict him”, Omotosho explained.

The court also said another option open to a defendant is to put in his defence where he will be opportuned to state his side of the story as well as present exculpatory evidence in his favour.

“The third and final option is to rest his case on the case of the prosecution. The defendant in this case chose to make a no case submission and this court overruled the no case submission on September 26, 2025 and ordered him to put in his defence as it is his constitutional right to do so. He however refused to do so. He rather consented to the withdrawal of the Learned Senior Advocates representing him. Despite the Court imploring him to enter his defence on several occasions even begging him in the name of God.

“As a minister in the temple of justice passionate about justice and as an apostle of Jesus Christ, I begged the defendant passionately and severally but the defendant was obstinate and refused and the court had no choice than to foreclose him.

“The effect of this is that the defendant has chosen to rest his case on the prosecution… The effect of the defendant resting his case on the prosecution is that it is a gamble and a risky option which may boomerang if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is believed by the court.

“The defendant in this case deliberately refused and failed to call any witness or present evidence through his witnesses in rebuttal of the case of the prosecution, the implication is that he admits the case of the prosecution and this court is entitled to rely on the uncontroverted evidence led by the prosecution.

“With respect to count one of the charge, the Defendant is facing a charge of committing an act in furtherance of an act of terrorism against the Federal Republic of Nigeria by making a broadcast received and heard in Nigeria with intent to intimidate the population and threatened that people will die and the whole world will stand still thereby committing an offence punishable under section 1 (2) (b) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, 2013.

“From the uncontroverted evidence led by the prosecution particularly the broadcasts contained in Exhibit PWW, it is clear that the defendant committed acts preparatory to and in furtherance of a terrorist act. The defendant had the opportunity to explain but failed and deliberately refused to take such opportunity. Thus he did not place any evidence before the court to explain the context of the said broadcasts or any reason which may be exculpatory in his favour.

“Having failed and deliberately refused to enter a defence, this court will rely on the uncontroverted evidence of the prosecution. This court therefore holds that the prosecution has established count one of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Defendant is hereby convicted of count one”, Omotosho held.

The court subsequently on similar grounds of uncontroverted evidence convicted the defendant in all the remaining six counts.

Having found him guilty, the judge subsequently sentenced him to life imprisonment, adding that the IPOB leader be held in protective custody in any part of the country, to prevent attack on him due to the harm he caused a lot of people, especially citizens of the Southeast region of the country. The court in making the order remarked that the Kuje Correctional Center may not be appropriate due to jail break.

Omotosho in addition ordered the Correctional Center not to allow Kanu access to computer devices, on the grounds that he had used the devices to call for all these atrocities. “He should not be allowed to near any of this device”, Omotosho held, adding that if he must make use of such devices, he must be monitored by the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA).

While in counts 1,2,4,5 and 6, Kanu was sentenced to life imprisonment, he was on count three sentenced to 20 years and five years on count five. The court in addition ordered the forfeiture of the radio transmitter to the federal government.