The Federal High Court in Abuja has delivered a landmark ruling in the long-running trial of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), convicting him on all seven terrorism charges brought against him by the Federal Government. The judgment marks one of the most consequential legal decisions in Nigeria’s recent history, intensifying debates around national security, separatist movements, and human rights.
Justice James Omotosho, presiding over the case, ruled that the prosecution—led by the Department of State Services (DSS)—presented sufficient, credible and compelling evidence to prove every element of the charges against Kanu. The judge held that the defendant failed to provide any credible defence, instead choosing to rest his fate entirely on the prosecution’s submissions.
Court: Prosecution Proved Its Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt
In a lengthy judgment delivered at the court’s Abuja division, Justice Omotosho analysed the testimonies, digital evidence, recorded broadcasts, eyewitness accounts, and intelligence reports tendered by the prosecution. According to the court, the evidence established that Kanu played an active, supervisory and directive role in the operations of a proscribed terrorist organisation.
The judge noted that Kanu’s public broadcasts, speeches, and directives contributed significantly to acts of violence, disruption of public order, and attacks on security formations in parts of the South-East. While acknowledging the sensitivity of issues concerning autonomy and self-determination, the court held that no political or ideological objective justifies violence, threats, or terrorism-related activities.
Justice Omotosho further observed that Kanu’s decision to decline presenting a defence—opting instead to rest his case on the prosecution’s arguments—left the court with no legal basis to consider alternative interpretations of the facts.
Kanu’s Strategy Backfires
The court’s ruling emphasized that Kanu’s litigation strategy was “a gamble that failed.” Despite the seriousness of the allegations, Kanu declined to call any witnesses, tender documents, or present counter-evidence. Legal analysts say this approach appears to have been based on the belief that the prosecution’s case was weak or contradictory.
However, the judge held that the prosecution had made out a prima facie case that demanded rebuttal, and Kanu’s refusal to respond meant the court had no alternative but to accept the government’s evidence as unchallenged.
According to Justice Omotosho, “a defendant who chooses silence assumes the legal risk that the prosecution’s claims, if strong and consistent, will stand.”
Court Faults Use of Violence in Pursuit of Biafra
In one of the most striking sections of the judgment, the court condemned the violent methods linked to IPOB’s activities, describing them as unlawful and incompatible with any legitimate struggle.
The judge noted that while individuals or groups may have political grievances, the pursuit of such grievances must remain within peaceful and constitutional boundaries. He faulted the strategy of seeking to establish a separate Biafra republic through “coercive force, intimidation, disruption of public order, and acts capable of instilling fear in the civilian population.”
The ruling reaffirmed that IPOB remains a proscribed terrorist organisation under Nigerian law and that any direct, indirect, or symbolic leadership role in its operations constitutes a serious offence.
Prosecution Demands Death Penalty
Although the judge has delivered the conviction, sentencing has not yet been finalized. The lead prosecutor, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Adegboyega Awomolo, told the court that the offence levelled against Kanu is of the “highest order” and warrants the maximum punishment, which in several of the counts is the death penalty.
Awomolo argued that counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 carry punishments that include capital sentences because of the severity of the actions allegedly orchestrated or inspired by Kanu. The prosecution described the offences as grave, destabilizing, and dangerous to national unity.
Expressing disappointment at Kanu’s conduct, the senior lawyer said the defendant had shown no remorse, even after years of trial. He told the court that Kanu’s behaviour remained “unruly and defiant,” insisting that a strong sentence is necessary both for justice and deterrence.
Defence Lawyers React
Although Kanu declined to present a defence during trial, members of his legal team expressed displeasure with the ruling outside the courtroom. They argued that the judgment did not adequately consider constitutional rights, political context, and questions around how Kanu was brought back to Nigeria. Some members of his legal team signaled an intention to challenge the ruling at the Court of Appeal.
Human rights organisations have also expressed concerns about the broader implications of the ruling, particularly regarding freedom of speech, political expression, and fair trial procedures. However, government officials insist that the judgment is solely based on evidence and national security considerations.
What Happens Next?
The court is expected to reconvene for sentencing, during which Justice Omotosho will decide whether to impose life imprisonment, the death penalty, or another sentence allowed under Nigerian law. Analysts say the decision could shape the government’s approach to separatist activities for years to come.
Beyond the courtroom, tensions remain high in several parts of the South-East, where Kanu retains a strong following. Security agencies have already heightened surveillance in anticipation of protests.
A Landmark Case With National Implications
The ruling represents a major moment in Nigeria’s counterterrorism framework. It underscores the judiciary’s position that violence—whether for political, ethnic, or ideological reasons—will not be tolerated.
As the country awaits sentencing, the case continues to spark wide-ranging discussions about national unity, the boundaries of activism, and how governments should respond to separatist movements in a democratic society.
Follow Africa Live News
- Facebook: https://facebook.com/Africalivenews
- Instagram: https://instagram.com/Africalivenews
- X (Twitter): https://x.com/Africalivenews2
- Threads: https://threads.net/Africalivenews
