By Chima Phillips and Segun Martins-
ABUJA– After years of legal battles, allegations of extraordinary rendition, bail controversies, and heated political debate, a Nigerian Federal High Court in Abuja convicted and sentenced Nnamdi Kanu to life imprisonment for all terrorism-related charges against him. Kanu, who has been in custody since his controversial re-arrest in Kenya in 2021, was earlier ejected from court ahead of the ruling. He had argued that his unlawful extradition from Kenya undermined any chance of a fair trial.
The judgment found that Kanu’s broadcasts and directives incited violence, killings of security operatives and civilians, and destruction of properties in Nigeria’s southeast region.
The trial of Nnamdi Kanu, a British-Nigerian political activist and self-proclaimed leader of the push for an independent state of Biafra, reached a critical juncture with his conviction on November 20, 2025.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
Kanu, who was earlier ejected from the court for unruly behaviour said: ”which law says you can charge me on an unwritten law”? Show mw. Omotosho, where is the law? Any judgement declared in this court is a complete rubbish”’.
The case has been a source of significant tension within Nigeria, highlighting deep-seated ethnic and political divides, and has attracted international attention.
The agitation for Biafran independence has a long and bloody history, culminating in a brutal civil war from 1967 to 1970 that resulted in an estimated one million deaths. Kanu re-ignited this separatist sentiment in recent years, founding the IPOB and its armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), and propagating his message of secession through a UK-registered station, Radio Biafra.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
The Nigerian government officially designated IPOB as a terrorist organization in 2017.
Kanu was first arrested on treason charges in October 2015 but was released on bail in April 2017. He subsequently jumped bail and fled the country after a military raid on his home. In June 2021, he was re-arrested in Kenya and extradited to Nigeria in an operation that was widely reported as an “extraordinary rendition”.
Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Justice James Omotosho, in delivering the judgment, stated that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through uncontroverted evidence. The court found that Kanu’s numerous broadcasts on Radio Biafra and statements at events, such as an Igbo World Congress in the US, explicitly incited violence and killings.
Specific statements cited included threats that “everything called Nigeria will perish in Biafra” and that the “only language people in the zoo (Nigeria) understand is violence”.
The judge ruled that Kanu used his leadership position in the banned IPOB/ESN to issue directives that resulted in deadly attacks on security forces and civilians in the southeast. Evidence presented included a witness who testified that 128 police officers, 37 soldiers, and 10 other operatives were killed, and 164 police stations were razed as a result of these directives.
Kanu had been convicted on Count 2 under the Terrorism Prevention Act for imposing unlawful “sit-at-home” directives, which the court determined were enforced with violence and threats, amounting to acts of terrorism. The judge linked these orders to the killing of figures such as Ahmed Gulak. Kanu refused to enter a formal defense during the trial, arguing jurisdictional issues. He had previously sacked his lawyers.
Justice Omotosho ruled that since the defense failed to utilize the allotted time and opportunities to present witnesses or evidence, they effectively waived their right, leaving the prosecution’s evidence unchallenged on record. Based on this, Justice Omotosho declared Kanu an “international terrorist” and found him guilty on all seven charges.
”The court finds that the defendant, Nnamdi Kano, is an international terrorist and must be treated accordingly, Omotosho said. His intention was quite clear ash he believed in violence. This threats of violence were nothing, but terrorist acts, the judge said, whilst convicting him.
Kanu’s lawyers argued that his abduction from Kenya and forceful rendition to Nigeria was a flagrant violation of both Nigerian and international laws (specifically the OAU Convention), a move that should have nullified the court’s jurisdiction to try him.
A previous Abia State High Court ruling had agreed with this position, but the Supreme Court later overturned an Appeal Court decision to strike the charges, stating Kanu’s remedy was a civil suit, allowing the trial to proceed.
Kanu was a British citizen travelling on his British passport, which remained in Kenya after his abduction. He was seized by Nigerian security forces in Nairobi without any formal extradition proceedings, judicial order, or warrant, which is said to be required by law.
However, some lawyers told this publication that the court is not always concerned with how a defendant in criminal proceedings in captured to be brought before its jurisdiction.
During the period of Kano’s “enforced disappearance” for 10 days, he was allegedly detained in a private facility and subjected to torture and ill-treatment, including being chained to the floor and beaten.
The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) and the Nigerian Court of Appeal have both concluded that his rendition was unlawful and a violation of international law. The Kenyan High Court has also recently ruled that his arrest, torture, and extradition were unconstitutional.
His supporters argued that because he was illegally brought into Nigeria, Nigerian courts lack the jurisdiction to try him for the existing charges. The Nigerian Court of Appeal initially discharged him on this basis, though the Supreme Court later ruled that the illegality of his arrest did not invalidate his prosecution if a crime had been committed.
Persecution Claim
Kanu claimed he was persecuted, and repeatedly accused the court of constructive denial of a fair hearing. His lawyers argued that the court did not adequately address their jurisdictional challenges before proceeding to judgment and that he was obstructed from consulting with some of his legal counsel during detention. The defense argued that the charges were defective because they were based on a repealed law, the Terrorism Prevention Act of 2013. The court dismissed this, confirming that the Act was an amendment and still in force.
Kanu’s supporters viewed the entire process as politically motivated persecution aimed at silencing a separatist leader. They argued that the push for self-determination is a political right, not an act of terrorism, and highlighted the government’s perceived failure to prosecute other “real” terrorists operating in the country while focusing solely on Kanu.
Tension was particularly high across the South-East, where Kanu enjoys strong grassroots support. Security agencies have strengthened patrols and placed officers on alert, anticipating that the judgment may trigger unrest regardless of the outcome. Several business owners have voluntarily closed shops, and schools in some communities have moved classes online for the day.
Nnamdi Kanu rose to prominence through Radio Biafra broadcasts that called for the creation of an independent Biafran state. His arrest in 2015 on charges ranging from treasonable felony to terrorism-related offences marked the beginning of what would become a protracted legal battle. Although Kanu was granted bail in 2017, he left the country after a military operation at his residence. His defence later claimed that he fled because he feared for his life following the raid, which led to multiple casualties.
Kanu resurfaced in Nigeria’s custody in 2021 under disputed circumstances that his legal team described as an “unlawful abduction” or extraordinary rendition. Nigerian authorities denied these allegations, insisting his return followed a legitimate international collaboration.
Legal proceedings since then have included amended charges, adjournments, and conflicting rulings. A major turning point came in 2022, when the Court of Appeal discharged him after ruling his rendition illegal. That decision was later stayed by the Supreme Court, allowing the federal case to proceed.
Today’s judgment comes after years of spirited legal arguments. The prosecution insists that Kanu’s activities posed a direct threat to national security. According to a senior government lawyer who spoke on condition of anonymity, “The state has a responsibility to protect its citizens. You cannot broadcast instructions that inspire violence and expect immunity from prosecution. The charges are severe, and we believe the law is on our side.”
They also argue that Nigeria retains full sovereignty to prosecute any citizen accused of a crime, regardless of the process through which the person was returned. Prosecutors maintain that Kanu violated the terms of his bail by leaving the country and that his leadership of IPOB—a group proscribed as a terrorist organisation—makes the charges not only lawful but necessary.
The defence argued that the case is fundamentally flawed. Barrister Ifeanyi Ejiofor, one of Kanu’s lawyers, reiterated this position yesterday, telling reporters, “You cannot build a prosecution on illegality. Nnamdi Kanu was abducted and brought into Nigeria in violation of international law, and that alone should nullify the entire case.” He added that Kanu’s political broadcasts were protected under freedom of expression and that no direct evidence links him to violent acts committed by armed groups.
Constitutional lawyer Dr. Anthonia Ubani explained the defence’s position further, stating, “When a state violates constitutional or international legal processes to secure a suspect, jurisprudence across multiple jurisdictions holds that the suspect cannot be tried. It is not merely a technicality; it is a foundational principle of justice.”
The judge listened to the prosecution lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, and a member of the House of Representatives, Obi Aguocha, who represents Mr Kanu’s constituency – the Umuahia North/Umuahia South/Ikwuano Federal Constituency.
While Mr Aguocha urged the judge to be lenient in his sentencing, Mr Awomolo called for the death penalty for five of the seven counts.
“The matter has come to a closure. For now, I’m not his lawyer. I wouldn’t know whether there was a safety appeal, but for now, the Lord he’s my brother.“He’s my friend. I went to school with him. We attended primary and secondary school together, though he was my junior, but it is my responsibility and obligation as a member of the National Assembly to represent him as well as the Lord,” he said.
But the prosecutor said the judge had no discretion exercise but was rather duty-bound to impose the death sentence on Mr Kanu for terrorism-related counts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.
“Nothing further remains but the lawful imposition of sentences. The punishment prescribed for the offences in counts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 is the death penalty.
“Pursuant to Section 12(h) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2019. My Lord, with all sense, I say, Sir, as the prosecutor, this court has no discretion in that regard.
“The only sentence that my Lordship will impose for counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 is the death sentence. This court has the power to do so and, with respect, must do so.”
International observers and diplomatic missions have also shown interest in the case, viewing it as a test of Nigeria’s commitment to judicial independence. A Western diplomat based in Abuja commented privately, “The world is watching closely. This case is significant not only for Nigeria but also for how nations address separatist movements within democratic frameworks.”
Kano came to national prominence in 2009 when he started Radio Biafra, a station that called for an independent state for the Igbo people, broadcast to Nigeria from London.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar