The Federal High Court in Abuja has convicted the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, on all seven counts of terrorism brought against him by the Federal Government and has sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Delivering the judgment, Justice James Omotosho held that although the prosecution sought the death penalty on several of the charges, the court opted to impose life imprisonment, noting that it had weighed both the gravity of the offences and the need to temper justice with mercy.
The court outlined the sentencing as follows:
- Counts 1, 4, 5, and 6: Life imprisonment.
- Count 3: 20 years imprisonment, without the option of a fine.
- Count 7: 5 years imprisonment, also without the option of a fine.
Justice Omotosho ordered that all sentences run concurrently, effectively committing Kanu to life in prison.
The offences for which Kanu was convicted include: broadcasting inciting messages that promoted violence, coordinating activities that aided the manufacture of explosives, and issuing orders that instigated public disorder in parts of the country.
The court described his broadcasts and directives as acts that endangered national security and contributed to widespread unrest.
During the proceedings, the prosecution maintained that Kanu’s activities constituted severe threats to the country’s stability and urged the court to impose the harshest penalties permitted under the law. The judge, however, declined to impose the death sentence.
Earlier in the day, tension rose in the courtroom after Kanu was removed for unruly behavior following repeated interruptions and objections to the court’s jurisdiction. Despite this disruption, the court proceeded with the judgment.
Following the conviction, Kanu’s legal consultant led by Aloy Ejimakor expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling and hinted at plans to appeal, insisting that the verdict was unjust and that the court failed to properly evaluate the evidence presented.
Kanu’s sentencing marks a significant moment in Nigeria’s extended legal and security confrontation with separatist activities in the Southeast, signaling a firm judicial stance against what the court described as acts of terrorism.
