Nnamdi Kanu Sentenced to Life Imprisonment by Federal High Court in Abuja

Federal High Court in Abuja has convicted Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), on all seven terrorism-related charges brought against him and sentenced him to life imprisonment, in a verdict delivered by Justice James Omotosho.

The court found that Kanu’s Radio Biafra broadcasts and his repeated calls for “sit-at-home” orders encouraged violence and constituted acts of terrorism.

Specifically, the judge ruled that Kanu’s broadcasts “constituted preparatory acts of terrorism,” including incitement to kill security personnel.

Justice Omotosho handed down the following sentences:

Life imprisonment on counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. 

20 years in prison (without option of fine) on count 3. 

5 years in prison (also no fine) on count 7, which relates to his unlawful importation of a radio transmitter to support Radio Biafra. 

The judge ordered that the sentence should run concurrently, meaning the longer and shorter terms overlap.

Because of what the court described as a “tendency toward violence,” Kanu is to be held in a high-risk custodial facility and denied access to electronic devices.

• Prosecutors had pushed for the death penalty on several counts, but Justice Omotosho opted for life imprisonment instead. 

• In delivering the sentence, the judge cited a biblical passage and expressed a desire to “temper justice with mercy.” He also referenced the global shift away from capital punishment.

• Kanu had dismissed his entire legal team shortly before the verdict and decided to defend himself. 

• He repeatedly challenged the court’s jurisdiction, claiming that the terrorism law under which he was charged had been repealed. 

• In early November, Justice Omotosho foreclosed his defence after Kanu failed to open it within the six days allotted. 

• Kanu had also appealed to the Court of Appeal, asking it to stop the judgment, arguing among other things that the statute he was charged under was repealed. 

• The decision to grant life imprisonment rather than death may be interpreted as an attempt by the court to walk a fine line: affirming the rule of law while avoiding the political extremity of executing a high-profile separatist leader.