- IPOB chief found guilty on all seven counts
The Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday sentenced the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment after finding him guilty of terrorism-related offences.
In a judgment that lasted for hours and kept the courtroom tense from the start to the finish, Justice James Omotosho held that the prosecution had led “sufficient, credible and compelling evidence” to establish its case against the defendant in the seven counts filed by the Department of State Service (DSS).
But the drama that unfolded inside Court 7 before the sentencing underscored the intensity of a trial that has gripped the nation for years.
Courtroom tension before judgment
From the moment the court doors opened shortly after 9 a.m., it was clear that the day would not proceed quietly.
Dozens of security operatives took positions within and outside the courtroom.
Their presence – stern faces, firm stances, and tight formations – announced that this was not an ordinary sitting.
At exactly 9:32 a.m., when Justice Omotosho walked into the courtroom, murmurs ended abruptly.
All eyes shifted to the man sitting surrounded by securitymen: Kanu.
The IPOB leader, dressed in his customary white outfit, rose instantly and shouted toward the judge’s seat even before the case was called.
“There is no judgment today!” he declared in a raised voice.
“We have joined issues. There cannot be judgment when issues have been joined!”
His sudden outburst startled some observers seated at the rear rows.
Lawyers exchanged glances.
Security men adjusted their positions.
Justice Omotosho, unfazed, calmly advised him to wait until the case was formally called.
Minutes later, the court registrar announced the case, and Kanu was directed into the dock.
He complied, but with visible agitation.
Judge condemns ‘barbaric’ conduct
In his judgment, Justice Omotosho held that Kanu had chosen to rest his case on the prosecution’s evidence.
He described the approach as “a risky gamble that failed.”
By doing so, he said, Kanu “impliedly admitted” the prosecution’s case.
After reviewing the evidence led by the DSS, the judge concluded that Kanu’s actions, including numerous inciting broadcasts, resulted in deaths, destruction of property and created widespread fear.
“From his terrorist activities, many innocent lives have been lost. All prosecution witnesses were witnesses of truth,” the judge said.
According to him, Kanu’s conduct during the trial was “cocky, unruly,” and punctuated by threats that “no court can jail him.”
The judge noted that the sit-at-home orders, which Kanu announced from overseas, had crippled life in the Southeast, subjecting the very people he claimed to be fighting for to fear, economic hardship and violence.
“Those killed for defying the sit-at-home order were the same people he claimed he wanted to liberate,” he said.
Justice Omotosho held that Kanu was never elected by the people of the Southeast, yet acted as though he possessed the legal authority to dictate their movement.
“By his conduct, he qualified only as a terrorist and should be treated as such,” the judge said.
The sentencing
After convicting him on all the counts, Justice Omotosho imposed life imprisonment on counts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 (terrorism-related offences), 20 years imprisonment (no fine option) on Count 3 (membership of a proscribed terrorist group), and five years imprisonment (no fine option) on Count 7 (unlawful importation of a radio transmitter to further Radio Biafra broadcasts).
The judge remarked that although the Terrorism Prevention Act under which Kanu was convicted prescribes the death penalty, he chose not to impose it “as a Christian.”
He cited an admonition from Matthew 23:22-23 on the virtues of mercy.
Nonetheless, he insisted that Kanu showed no remorse for the “atrocities” he committed.
Given the violent nature of the offences and the defendant’s conduct, Justice Omotosho held that Kanu should be placed in a suitable facility—not Kuje Prison.
“Because of his atrocities, he deserves protection. He should be kept in protective custody in any part of the country,” the judge said.
He further ordered that Kanu must not be allowed near any communication device except under monitoring by the National Security Adviser (NSA).
The judge said: “Our God Himself is merciful. Nnamdi Kanu has been convicted, and this court is only being merciful to him because we, too, must be merciful.
“The court is minded to sentence the convict to death due to the atrocities he committed. The convict has not shown any remorse for his actions; he remains arrogant and cocky, without realising the magnitude of his crime and the effect of what he has done against his people.
“Although I am not fully persuaded, I must temper justice with mercy.
“The death penalty is now being frowned upon globally by the international community.
“In the interest of justice, I hereby sentence the convict to life imprisonment on counts 1, 4, 5, and 6, instead of the death sentence, for life is sacred to God.”
How the court found Kanu guilty
Count One (broadcasts threatening violence): the judge reviewed several broadcasts, including an interview on Sahara TV, where Kanu used words that were “not mere words but threats to harm people.”
He held that Kanu endorsed violent actions and believed violence was necessary to achieve Biafra.
“These threats are terrorist acts,” he ruled.
Count Two (sit-at-home orders): Justice Omotosho found that the sit-at-home directives issued by Kanu led to killings, including that of former presidential aide Ahmed Gulak.
He ruled that only the President, under the Emergency Powers Act, could restrict movement nationwide, not an individual acting without lawful authority.
Count Three (membership of IPOB/ESN): Kanu, the judge said, never denied being founder and leader of IPOB and the Eastern Security Network (ESN), both proscribed.
The court admitted the Federal Government’s gazette proscribing the groups.
Counts Four and Five (incitement to kill security personnel): According to the judge, evidence showed that over 75 security personnel and civilians were killed as a result of Kanu’s broadcasts.
Justice Omotosho recalled broadcasts where Kanu directed his followers on how to attack security operatives, including issuing violent instructions during the EndSARS protests.
“He turned himself into a tyrant,” Justice Omotosho said.
Count Six (teaching followers how to make bombs): The judge found evidence, including audio clips, showing Kanu teaching IPOB members how to build improvised explosive devices.
“This tutoring shows his barbaric mindset,” he said.
Count Seven (smuggling radio transmitter): The court held that the prosecution proved that the transmitter used for Radio Biafra broadcasts was imported illegally and concealed.
Radio Biafra, the court noted, is not registered in Nigeria.
How the court resolved preliminary issues
Before delivering the main judgment, the judge addressed Kanu’s preliminary objections.
Kanu argued that the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 had been repealed by the 2022 Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act.
Justice Omotosho disagreed.
He held that offences were committed between 2018 and 2021, when the 2013 Act was still in force.
Section 98(3) of the 2022 Act, he explained, preserves ongoing cases filed under the repealed law.
Extraordinary rendition claim
Kanu claimed he was unlawfully abducted from Kenya, rendering his trial invalid.
The court held that even if his return was questionable, the manner of arrest did not invalidate the charges.
The judge added that Kanu had already obtained compensation from a Kenyan court in a separate case on alleged violation of rights.
Application for Bail and Stay of Proceedings
Justice Omotosho rejected Kanu’s bail request and his plea to halt proceedings pending the determination of constitutional questions at the Court of Appeal.
A courtroom gripped by drama
From the beginning of the proceedings, it was clear that Kanu was not ready for the judgment.
Immediately the judge entered the courtroom, Kanu rose from where he sat among the security officials, and shouted that there would be no judgment.
He said: “There is no judgment today. We have joined issues. There cannot be judgment when we have joined issues.”
The judge then cut in and advised him to wait for the case to be called before he could address the court.
The case was then called by the court registrar, following which Kanu went into the dock.
By the prompting of the judge, Kanu identified some fresh applications and motions he just filed, including one seeking to arrest the judgment.
The judge later took arguments from both Kanu, who represented himself and Awomolo.
Justice Omotosho dismissed all the applications and motions.
As the judge announced his intention to proceed to deliver the main judgment, Kanu lost his cool and started shouting at the top of his voice.
He accused the judge of being biased, adding that the judge did not know the law.
As Kanu continued to rant, Awomolo rose to his feet and applied to the court to exercise his power under Section 266 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) to order the removal of the defendant from the courtroom in view of his unruly behaviour.
Justice Omotosho agreed with Awomolo and ordered the security personnel in court to take the defendant out of the courtroom.
The judge further ordered that, in view of his unruly conduct, subsequent proceedings in the case shall be conducted in his absence.
The judge stood down proceedings briefly for the security personnel to carry out his order.
Kanu, who by then had become so enraged, initially refused to accompany the security officials out of the courtroom by shouting: “Don’t come close to me. Don’t come close to me.”
A moment later, he changed his mind and was walked out of the courtroom by the security personnel, who relocated him to one of the offices in the court building.
