The Federal High Court in Abuja has delivered a landmark judgment, convicting Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), on all seven terrorism-related charges brought against him by the Federal Government.
Justice James Omotosho handed down the verdict on Thursday, November 20th, finding Kanu guilty of offences that included leading a proscribed organisation and inciting violence. The court determined that his actions led to loss of life, destruction of property, and significant disruption of socio-economic activities in several states.
The court subsequently sentenced Nnamdi Kanu to life imprisonment, affirming that his conduct constituted acts of terrorism as defined and punishable under Nigerian law.
The Seven Terrorism Offences
Here is a detailed breakdown of the seven counts on which the IPOB leader was convicted, based on the court's findings and documents.
1. Broadcasting Secession Plans for a Biafran Republic
The court established that Kanu used his Radio Biafra broadcasts in 2014 and 2015 to outline detailed preparations for the secession of several states in the South-East, South-South, and parts of Kogi and Benue from Nigeria. This was ruled a violation of Section 41(c) of the Criminal Code Act.
2. Defamatory Broadcasts Against the President
Kanu was found guilty of using Radio Biafra in April 2015 to make defamatory statements against then-President Muhammadu Buhari, referring to him with unsubstantiated labels. The court declared these statements false and unlawful under Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act.
3. Illegal Importation of a Radio Transmitter
Evidence presented in court showed that Kanu illegally imported a TRAM 50L radio transmitter into Nigeria in 2015. The equipment was concealed in a shipment that was falsely declared as used household items, an act that breached Section 47(2) of the Criminal Code Act.
4. Membership and Leadership of a Proscribed Terrorist Organisation
Between 2018 and 2021, Kanu publicly professed his membership and leadership of IPOB through broadcasts that were monitored in cities including Enugu and Abuja. Since IPOB had already been proscribed as a terrorist organisation, his actions constituted an offence under Section 16 of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, 2013.
5. Incitement to Hunt Down Security Personnel and Their Families
In a broadcast monitored on Radio Biafra in April 2021, Kanu explicitly urged members of IPOB to seek out security operatives and their families. Justice Omotosho ruled that this call to action qualified as an act of terrorism under Section 1(2)(h) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act.
6. Issuing a Threat of Widespread Violence
On 16 May 2021, Kanu declared in a broadcast that people would die and the world would stand still within two weeks. The court interpreted this statement as a clear threat intended to incite violence, leading to his conviction under Section 1(2)(b) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act.
7. Deadly Sit-At-Home Order and Threat Against Defaulters
On 31 May 2021, Kanu issued a sit-at-home order and warned that anyone who defied it should write their will. This threat resulted in the widespread closure of banks, markets, fuel stations, and schools, while paralysing vehicular movement. The court ruled this amounted to terrorism under Section 1(2)(b) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act.
Sentencing and IPOB's Reaction
The court handed Kanu multiple sentences, which are to run concurrently. He received life imprisonment for Counts 1, 4, 5, and 6. For Count 3, concerning the illegal importation of a transmitter, he was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. For Count 7, related to the deadly sit-at-home order, he received a 5-year sentence. All sentences were passed without an option of a fine.
In a swift reaction, the Indigenous People of Biafra has vehemently rejected the judgment. In a statement issued on Friday by its spokesman, Emma Powerful, the group insisted that Nnamdi Kanu committed no offence known to Nigerian law.
IPOB argued that Kanu's actions were exercises in self-determination, a right it claims is protected under international conventions like the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. The group questioned the evidence presented, stating that no weapons or explicit attack plans were ever linked to Kanu directly.
The group also raised legal objections, alleging the judge failed to properly apply constitutional provisions regarding the definition of offences. IPOB announced plans to continue challenging the verdict through legal analysis and engagements with international bodies, citing alleged human rights violations and judicial inconsistencies.
