Court Slams Kanu With Life Sentence, Labels Him ‘International Terrorist’

The Federal High Court today ( 20/11/2025) delivered a sweeping judgment against Nnamdi Kanu, the fiery and charismatic leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), sentencing him to life imprisonment on terrorism charges.

The ruling, read by Justice James Omotosho, landed like a seismic shock—one that reverberated far beyond the wooden benches of Court 7. With calm but unwavering tone, the judge declared that Kanu’s words, broadcasts, and commands amounted not merely to political dissent but to acts of terror that had spilled blood, collapsed markets, and transformed daily life across Nigeria’s South-East.

And in a striking escalation, he branded Kanu an “international terrorist,” citing threats made against diplomats and foreign missions. It was a label that framed the man at the center of Nigeria’s separatist agitation as a global threat—far beyond the realm of domestic security.

Nnamdi Kanu’s story has never been a simple one. Since his arrest in 2015, he has ping-ponged through courtrooms, detention centers, diplomatic disputes, and headline-making confrontations. His broadcasts on Radio Biafra electrified supporters and infuriated authorities. His rhetoric—unfiltered, defiant, and often incendiary—became the heartbeat of a movement and the curse of a region struggling through waves of violence.

The court, after reviewing years of audio recordings and testimonies, ruled that these broadcasts weren’t just bluster. They were blueprints for chaos. Justice Omotosho read excerpts aloud—Kanu telling followers to ambush security forces, to seize guns, to burn down airports. The judge paused between quotes, letting the gravity of the words sink deeper into the courtroom’s air.

“These,” he said, “are not the words of a freedom fighter. They are the instructions of a man prepared to unleash terror.”

Before the judgment was delivered, Kanu squared off with the judge in a brief but heated moment. He insisted he had been denied the right to file a final written address—something he declared unconstitutional. His voice rose. The judge’s patience thinned. Minutes later, marshals escorted Kanu out, and the verdict proceeded without him.

It was a symbolic moment in a trial defined by friction: a man who once claimed no court could convict him being removed from the very space where his fate was sealed.

Kanu was convicted on multiple counts ranging from incitement to violence, affiliation with a proscribed group, and terrorist threats against international institutions. The most damning of these, in the judge’s view, were his alleged instructions to target the British High Commission and the U.S. Embassy—threats that pushed the matter beyond Nigeria’s borders.

For this, Justice Omotosho said, Kanu had earned the classification of an international terrorist.

For this, he ruled, the sentence must be life.

The judgment also imposed strict detention conditions: no digital devices, constant monitoring, and confinement in a secure facility chosen by the Office of the National Security Adviser.

The courtroom’s central tension rested on a question much bigger than Kanu: What does self-determination look like in a country whose constitution forbids division?

Justice Omotosho acknowledged Article 20 of the African Charter, which permits self-determination—but insisted that under Nigerian law, such agitation must happen through constitutional amendment, not violence. To him, IPOB’s actions had become indistinguishable from those of Boko Haram and other extremist groups.

“Terrorism,” he said, “has become a monster. And this court will not allow it to masquerade as political liberation.”

Government prosecutor Gboyega Awomolo (SAN) urged the court to impose the death penalty, arguing that the families of 75 slain security officers deserved justice. He said Kanu’s conduct throughout the trial showed “arrogance, not remorse.”

But Justice Omotosho, despite condemning Kanu’s actions, opted for life imprisonment instead—a judgment he described as “mercy.”

Outside the courthouse, Aloy Ejimakor, Kanu’s counsel, called the verdict “a travesty of justice” and vowed to challenge it. To him, Kanu had been convicted for words, not deeds—and for broadcasts allegedly made from unknown locations, with no direct link to the violence.

“We move to the Court of Appeal,” he said. “And if necessary, to the Supreme Court. This is not the end.”