The Federal High Court in Abuja has sentenced Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), to life imprisonment on multiple terrorism-related charges, igniting renewed debate and regional tension.
Justice James Omotosho found Kanu guilty on all seven counts leveled against him by the Department of State Services (DSS). The charges include incitement of violence, illegal radio broadcasts via his “Radio Biafra,” and enforcing “sit-at-home” orders in the southeastern states — acts the court ruled amounted to terrorism.
Justice Omotosho said he would have handed down the death penalty given the severity of the offenses but opted for life imprisonment in a move he described as merciful. He also ordered Kanu to be placed in protective custody rather than in Kuje Correctional Centre, citing security concerns.
The court further ruled that Kanu’s confiscated radio transmitter (used to run Radio Biafra broadcasts) be forfeited to the federal government.
According to the judge, Kanu’s broadcasts and directives were not mere political rhetoric but constituted preparatory terrorism. Justice Omotosho emphasized that while the “right to self-determination” is political, any effort to secede outside Nigeria’s constitutional framework is unlawful.
Kanu, who holds both Nigerian and UK citizenship, has challenged the court’s legitimacy throughout the years-long trial. He was re-arrested in Kenya in 2021 and extradited to Nigeria under controversial circumstances.
In the immediate aftermath of the sentence, IPOB condemned the verdict. While acknowledging the judgment, the group insisted Kanu had not committed any terrorist acts under Nigerian or international law and reiterated its commitment to peaceful self-determination through a UN-supervised referendum. IPOB’s spokesperson, Emma Powerful, also denied that Kanu had orchestrated violence, calling the case politically charged.
Kanu’s legal team has announced plans to appeal the life sentence. According to his former lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, they will head straight to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the convictions were politically motivated.