KEY POINTS
- Nnamdi Kanu was convicted on seven terrorism counts.
- Court cited Kanu’s broadcasts that incited widespread violence.
- Life imprisonment enforced while protective custody ensures public safety.
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), was sentenced to life imprisonment on Thursday by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, therefore culminating a legal struggle that lasted over a decade. The ruling determined Kanu culpable on all seven counts of terrorism-related offenses, five of which are punishable by the maximum death penalty under Nigerian legislation.
Kanu’s life imprisonment ruling explained
Justice Omotosho observed that the sentence might have been more moderate had Kanu consulted legal professionals and taken advantage of numerous opportunities to present a defense. The court’s decision comes after years of procedural complexities, including Kanu’s apprehension at a Lagos hotel in October 2015 by the Department of State Services (DSS), his arraignment in Abuja, and multiple transfers between courts. He was initially adjudicated by Justices Ahmed Mohammed, John Tsoho, Binta Nyako, and ultimately Omotosho.
Kanu consistently contested the courts’ jurisdiction, claiming bias and asserting that he could not be prosecuted for terrorism. Justice Omotosho dismissed these assertions, underscoring that acts of terrorism cannot be utilized to seek self-determination beyond constitutional frameworks. “Any self-determination executed contrary to the constitution and laws of this nation will be deemed illegal,” he stated. The defendant is not merely advocating for the secession of the South East, South South, and certain Middle Belt states; he is employing terrorism as a means to achieve this objective.
Nnamdi Kanu terrorism case timeline
Subsequent to his exceptional rendition from Kenya in 2021, Kanu encountered a revised 15-count indictment. Following the no-case submission by his attorney, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), the court dismissed eight charges and mandated that he present a defense for the remaining seven. The federal government’s following appeal, first successful due to the nature of Kanu’s rendition, was reversed by the Supreme Court in 2023, mandating the trial to proceed.
According to Thisday, prior to Omotosho, the DSS introduced five witnesses together with substantial video and documentary evidence, illustrating that Kanu’s social media broadcasts incited violence and resulted in fatalities in the Southeast. The recordings contained threats directed at Nigerians, enforcement of sit-at-home mandates, and remarks characterizing Nigeria as a “zoo,” in addition to threats against security officers and public infrastructure.
Kanu refrained from offering any defense, notwithstanding many court appeals and directives. Justice Omotosho emphasized that a defendant has three alternatives following the conclusion of the prosecution: to submit a no-case argument, to provide a defense with witnesses and evidence, or to rely only on the prosecution’s case. Kanu opted for the latter, declining legal representation, a choice the judge indicated substantially influenced the trial’s result.
