Federal High Court Publishes Complete List Of Terrorism Offences Nnamdi Kanu Convicted For And Sentenced

 

The Federal High Court in Abuja has handed down a landmark verdict against Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), convicting him on seven terrorism-related charges and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The ruling, delivered by Justice James Omotosho, marks a significant development in Nigeria’s legal and security landscape, as Kanu has long been a central figure in calls for Biafran independence.

The charges against Kanu spanned multiple years and locations, primarily involving his activities while in the United Kingdom. Prosecutors presented evidence showing that Kanu engaged in a series of broadcasts on Radio Biafra, which were monitored in Enugu and other Nigerian states, and that these broadcasts constituted acts of terrorism and threats against national security.

The first count detailed Kanu’s role in allegedly orchestrating plans for secession, aimed at establishing a new state in the South-East, South-South, and parts of Kogi and Benue states. The court noted that his broadcasts in 2014 and 2015 were intended to encourage citizens to break away from Nigeria, an act punishable under Section 41(c) of the Criminal Code Act.

Count two focused on derogatory statements made by Kanu against President Muhammadu Buhari during a 2015 broadcast. The court found that Kanu knowingly referred to the President as a paedophile, terrorist, and other offensive terms, constituting a violation of Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act, which deals with false and harmful statements against public officials.

The third count revolved around the importation of a concealed radio transmitter, the TRAM 50L, into Nigeria. Kanu allegedly smuggled the device hidden within household goods, which was later discovered in Anambra State. This act was deemed unlawful under Section 47(2) of the Criminal Code Act, highlighting his efforts to maintain operational control of Radio Biafra from abroad.

Counts four through seven primarily examined Kanu’s continued membership and leadership of IPOB, which remains a proscribed organization under Nigerian law. The court determined that between 2018 and 2021, Kanu openly professed affiliation with IPOB, incited followers to target security personnel and their families, and issued threatening statements through Radio Biafra. His actions included directing citizens to comply with sit-at-home orders, resulting in widespread closures of banks, markets, schools, and fuel stations. Such conduct was ruled a direct contravention of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, Sections 1(2)(b) and 1(2)(h).

During the trial, the prosecution presented extensive evidence including recordings of broadcasts, testimonies from security officials, and documentation of Kanu’s activities abroad and within Nigeria. The court concluded that his actions not only threatened public safety but also undermined national cohesion by advocating for violent secessionist activities.

Justice Omotosho, while delivering the verdict, emphasized the seriousness of the offences and the threat posed to Nigeria’s security and stability. The life imprisonment sentence reflects the court’s intention to hold Kanu accountable for both incitement and material acts in furtherance of terrorism. Legal analysts have noted that the decision could set a precedent for handling similar cases involving separatist movements and the use of foreign-based media for domestic subversion.

Following the ruling, reactions have been swift. Supporters of Kanu and IPOB have condemned the verdict, describing it as politically motivated, while government officials have praised the judiciary for enforcing the law and maintaining national security. The sentence underscores Nigeria’s ongoing efforts to address terrorism, secessionist agitation, and the illegal operations of proscribed organizations.

The case of Nnamdi Kanu illustrates the complex intersection of politics, media, and national security, and it is expected to have long-term implications for the enforcement of anti-terrorism legislation in Nigeria. The court’s decision sends a clear message regarding accountability for acts that threaten the sovereignty and stability of the nation, particularly when carried out through international networks and media channels.