Judul : Kanu Sentenced to Life in 10-Year Trial
link : Kanu Sentenced to Life in 10-Year Trial
Kanu Sentenced to Life in 10-Year Trial
A Federal High Court in Abuja sentenced the head of the banned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to life in prison for terrorism and directed his detention under protective custody.
Judge James Omotosho, who found Kanu guilty on all charges, however mentioned that, as a Christian, he decided to show compassion and changed the sentence to life imprisonment, instead of the death penalty outlined by the law.
Although the judge lowered the maximum sentence for counts one, two, four, five, and six of the seven-count charge, he sentenced Kanu to 20 years in prison without the possibility of a fine for count three. The court also handed down a five-year jail term to Kanu for illegally importing a radio transmitter.
The judge directed that the defendant be placed under protective custody anywhere in the country, except at Kuje Prison in Abuja, and that the radio transmitter be surrendered to the federal government.
Earlier that day, the judge ordered Kanu to leave the courtroom due to 'disruptive conduct' following the rejection of three new motions he submitted after the case was postponed for a ruling.
Kanu, who had dismissed his senior attorneys Kanu Agabi, Onyechi Ikpeazu, and Paul Erokoro in October to represent himself, submitted three motions on November 12, arguing that the High Court did not have the authority to hear the case. His claims included that the Supreme Court had ruled he was illegally transferred from Kenya to Nigeria, that he was charged under a repealed 2013 Terrorism Prevention Act, and that he should be released on bail.
The judge determined that Kanu intentionally did not provide any evidence to counter the accusations against him, resulting in him deciding to rely on the prosecution's case, which was considered unopposed.
Regarding the matter of insufficient opportunity for a fair hearing, the court stated that Kanu had all available chances for his defense, but decided to submit a no case argument, which was rejected. The Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) was instructed to evaluate his fitness to stand trial, resulting in a report confirming he was fit to proceed.
"The court had closely watched the defendant throughout the trial, assessing his physical condition, his defiant behavior, and his ability to defend himself, and it was clear beyond any doubt that he is indeed fit to face the trial," he stated.
Regarding the matter of extraordinary rendition, the court decided that the Supreme Court had determined that the method used to bring him into court did not prevent the High Court of the relevant jurisdiction from proceeding with the trial on the charge in question.
The judge stated that because his charge was submitted prior to him skipping bail, "His escape and presence in Kenya make him a fugitive."
The judge further noted that during the #EndSARS demonstration, Kanu aired a broadcast that led to the loss of lives and damage to properties across various regions, including the death of former presidential advisor, Ahmed Gulak.
The judge mentioned that during the demonstration, Kanu also advocated for an assault on the British High Commission in Abuja, the consulate in Lagos, and the High Commissioner, Catriona Liang.
He claimed that Kanu was an "international terrorist," as his actions would have violated Article 22 of the Vienna Convention regarding the inviolability of foreign missions in any nation.
After the conviction, the prosecution lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), requested the court to apply the most severe death penalty outlined in three of the seven charges, as there was no opportunity for the court to exercise any discretion in those cases.
He additionally asked that Kanu's digital media devices and accounts be shut down, surrendered, or taken by the court to stop him from committing further offenses prior to the sentence being carried out.
Additionally, he argued that the court should 'order the defendant to be placed in the most secure detention facility in Nigeria until the sentence is carried out.'
He pointed out that Kanu is a polarizing individual, having numerous allies and adversaries — some of whom might seek to remove him if the chance arises.
In his final statement (request for compassion), Obi Aguocha, a legislator representing Kanu's area, urged the court to take into account the restoration of peace and the necessity of addressing the terrorism affecting the nation when determining the punishment.
Following the ruling, lead prosecutor Awomolo stated that the court has put an end to 'oppression and injustice faced by the eastern states of Nigeria, allowing the people to now rest with both eyes closed.'
"Every Nigerian should treat insecurity as a critical issue because Nigeria is our nation; we don't have another place to refer to as home," he stated.
Nevertheless, Aloy Ejimakor Esq, the advisor to Kanu, pledged to challenge the ruling.
Today will always be remembered as a day of shame; it is the sole instance where a person was found guilty based solely on verbal statements, not actions taken with their own hands.
The decision does not align with the evidence presented in court. The punishment is excessive, harsh, and inhumane.
"How can you convict a person for making a broadcast from a place that was never identified, and they haven't connected that broadcast to any act of violence or even a simple slap, let alone terrorism?" he asked.
During the trial, Daily Trust reported that security officers were stationed near Kanu's residence in Afara-Ukwu Ibeku, Umuahia, Abia State, to avoid any disruption of public order.
The charge
The U.S. Department of State Security Service (DSS) filed a new 15-count charge against Kanu in 2015, which was subsequently lowered to seven counts by the court in 2021. During this time, five witnesses and various items seized from Kanu at a Lagos hotel, including phones, laptops, perfumes, ATM cards, and Biafra radio equipment, were presented as evidence.
During the initial filing, the prosecution alleged in Count 1 that in 2021, Kanu engaged in terrorist activities by delivering a broadcast intended to frighten Nigerians, claiming that "people will die and the entire world will stand," which violates Section 1(2)(b) of the Terrorism Prevention Act, 2011.
In count 2, the DSS also mentioned that during 2021, Kanu issued a lethal threat stating that anyone who violated the stay-at-home order should write their will, leading to the closure of banks, schools, markets, and fuel stations in the eastern states of Nigeria. This resulted in citizens and vehicle movements being halted, violating Section 2(b) of the Terrorism Prevention Act, 2011.
In count 3, the DSS claimed that from 2018 to 2021, Kanu stated he was a member and leader of IPOB, a banned group, in violation of Section 16 of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2013.
During counts 4 and 5, from 2018 to 2021, Kanu made a broadcast that was heard and received in Nigeria, aiming to kill the country's security officers and their family members, violating Section 1(2)(8) of the Terrorism Prevention Act, 2013.
During count 6, Kanu was accused of delivering a broadcast between 2018 and 2021 in which he instructed members of the IPOB, a banned group, to create explosives, violating Section 1(2)(f) of the Terrorism Prevention Act, 2013.
During count 7, Kanu was charged with bringing in a container that contained a radio transmitter called TRAM 50L, which he stored at Ubuluisiuzor in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State for Radio Biafra, violating Section 47(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.
The DSS claimed that Kanu's directives resulted in the destruction of multiple government structures, the death of innocent people, including more than 170 security officers.
Kanu's family, Abaribe, and others respond
The relatives of the IPOB leader dismissed the court's decision, claiming it was "a political ruling with no legal basis."
In an interview with Daily Trust right after the ruling, Prince Emmanuel Kanu, the younger sibling of the IPOB leader, stated that the whole trial was devoid of reliable evidence and accused the judge in charge of basing their decision on claims that were never presented in court.
He stated, "During the entire court presentation, there was no specific evidence pointing to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. However, we were surprised to hear the judge refer to matters that were not included in the case file. He even alleged that my brother tried to bomb the American and British embassies - an issue that was never discussed in court."
Prince Emmanuel stated that these statements are "a disgrace to the dignity of Nigeria's judiciary," maintaining that the seven-count charge for which the IPOB leader was found guilty lacks support from any valid or written law.
He mentioned that Kanu kept asking to be informed of the law by which he was being prosecuted, a query he claimed the court did not address.
"How do you move forward with a judgment when the accused person inquires under which law they are being charged, and there is no response? According to the constitution, he has the right to deliver an allocution before sentencing, but Justice Omotosho refused him even that," he stated.
He claimed that various events associated with Kanu in the ruling—such as the EndSARS protest and the death of Ahmed Gulak—had already been publicly refuted or proven unrelated to the IPOB leader.
'Even the governor of Imo State has openly stated that Gulak was killed by his political rivals. So why link that to Kanu? Why emphasize matters that were never presented as evidence?' he questioned.
He also rejected allegations connecting Kanu to the stay-at-home orders, pointing out that on the day Gulak was killed, "a Sunday, not even a day when people were supposed to stay home," highlights the contradictions in the accusations.
He argued that "no one has ever come forward to claim that Nnamdi Kanu encouraged them to commit violence," maintaining that the ongoing imprisonment of the IPOB leader is illegal.
In response to the verdict, Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe made a statement in Abuja through his Media Adviser, Uchenna Awom, stating that the life imprisonment given to Kanu was a premeditated scheme that comes as no surprise to the Igbo people and other 'rational Nigerians'.
Abaribe stated at that time that the federal government did not consider requests to extend the amnesty to Nnamdi Kanu, unlike what was done for others, saying, "we knew that today's result was inevitable."
Is it not ironic that talks and peace agreements with violent extremists in the North East and North West were enthusiastically started by the local government, state authorities, and federal government, similar to the amnesty given to former militants in the South South, who were rewarded with profitable oil pipeline contracts? This implies that justice in Nigeria is not extended to the South East.
"So, we are not taken aback; our people can only withstand and look forward to a time when justice in Nigeria becomes essential. We have done our utmost, and we have repeatedly urged the authorities to be cautious and at least grant clemency for the sake of unity and inclusivity," Abaribe stated.
The Ohanaeze Ndigbo spokesperson, Ezichi Chukwu, said in response to inquiries that the group will make a statement once it has decided on its stance regarding the issue.
Not the end of the road, says Middle-Belt Forum, Southeast group
The head of the Middle-Belt Forum, Dr. Bitrus Pogu stated, "In my opinion, the verdict is likely to be challenged by his legal team, and I think his case will ultimately be addressed politically. I don't think it will conclude through a judicial process."
There have been numerous freedom fighters throughout history who were imprisoned, but their sentences were later overturned through political means, leading to their release. A notable example is Nelson Mandela, who, despite the long struggle, was eventually set free and even went on to become president. "Therefore, I believe that Kanu's case will ultimately be resolved through political processes," he stated.
The Southeast Group, in turn, dismissed Kanu's conviction and characterized the decision as a legal mistake, a breach of the constitution, and an intentional attack on the values of fair trial, natural justice, and proper legal procedure.
A statement released in Abuja, signed by the group's National Director of Publicity, Evang. Nnaemeka Aleke, claimed the ruling was a disgrace to Nigeria's legal system.
In the meantime, responses from the Southeast have remained behind the ruling. As reported by the Vanguard newspaper, individuals were observed at various locations within Owerri municipality in Imo State, talking about the issue in hushed voices, with only a small number willing to comment on the subject.
Chief Simeon Odike stated he was not taken aback by the ruling, saying, 'I didn't anticipate anything different. Have we not lost track of the rulings in favor of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu? Did any of those rulings get followed?'
Notable Igbo men, women, religious leaders, and in recent times, at least 44 members of the National Assembly from various regions of the country, urged President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to kindly free Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
"It's unfortunate this didn't function as expected. Let's observe what occurs next," he remarked.
Speaking as well, Mr. Luke Okechukwu stated, "I am disappointed by the decision of the Federal High Court. The atmosphere clearly reflects the emotions of the people."
It might have been possible to find a delicate, enjoyable, and politically-oriented resolution to this matter, rather than completely depending on our legal system.
It's unfortunate that those in positions of authority were unwilling to take advantage of it. I know the court can deliver justice, but certainly not peace, as these are distinct concepts.
In her statement, Mrs. Adaora Okoro remarked, "The sentence of life imprisonment handed down by this judge did not surprise anyone who has been tracking the case so far."
I view it as starting from the answer to the question. It is particularly intriguing that the court session was broadcast live by prominent national television networks.
In Abuja, human rights advocate Omoyele Sowore claimed the federal government followed a pre-planned 'political plan' in sentencing IPOB leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
On a post via his X account on Thursday, Sowore mentioned that he had previously indicated on November 5, 2025, that the result of Kanu's trial was already decided.
In a statement, the Igbo Community Association based in the FCT mentioned that the ruling reflects poorly on the President Tinubu administration.
The President General, Ikenna Ellis-Ezenekwe, stated that the 'judgment does not align with the spirit of camaraderie' that was shown to Boko Haram fighters and other combatants across the nation.
Kanu may file an appeal - Attorneys
In the meantime, legal professionals have stated that the accused has the right to challenge the decision if he is unhappy with the result.
In response, Professor Abdullahi Shehu Zuru mentioned that the choice to file an appeal was based on the legal team's perspective, and he noted that the court has the ability to continue proceedings even if the defendant is not present, particularly when they have been deemed disruptive.
Additionally, Adedayo Adedeji (SAN) stated that the court's decision to remove the defendant from the courtroom prior to announcing the verdict was in accordance with the law.
"He is entitled to appeal, as the Federal High Court is not the last resort, and since the conviction has taken place, he has the right to challenge it," he stated.
He mentioned that there are specific requirements for introducing new evidence during an appeal, should he decide to proceed with it.
Jibrin S. Jibrin, Esq., stated that a ruling may be issued without the defendant being present in specific situations, particularly when his absence does not lead to an unfair outcome and there is a valid justification for it, while also noting that Kanu has the option to challenge the decision.
Likewise, Nkem Okoro Esq mentioned that the defendant mishandled his case by choosing to represent himself.
"He did nothing to improve his situation; the key takeaway from the entire trial or narrative of Nnamdi Kalu is that our actions should conform to the law, regardless of how wronged we may feel," he said.
Major IPOB Attacks Timeline (2015-2025)
2015-2017: Intense conflicts erupted in Aba, Onitsha, and Port Harcourt following the detention of Kanu. Police stations and roadblocks were targeted.
2018-2020: Infrequent attacks on police stations; deliberate murders of political figures and tribal leaders.
2021: A stay-at-home directive was issued; implementation resulted in extensive violence and fires.
2022: INEC branches, police departments, and public institutions were targeted in Imo and Anambra.
2023: Ongoing enforcement efforts hindered trade; fires set against marketplaces and transportation providers.
2024: The international branch of IPOB signed a statement in Finland, alleging that Nigeria committed 'genocide.' Hostilities continued, including killings and damage to property.
2025: More than 700 fatalities have been documented; Imo and Anambra states are reported to be the most affected.
Kanu's broadcasts and posts
2015-2017: While on Radio Biafra, Kanu referred to Nigeria as a 'zoo' and stated that 'the only language people in the zoo comprehend is violence.'
2020 (EndSARS): Kanu encouraged violence against police officers and their families through online platforms.
2021: He announced weekly stay-at-home demonstrations; broadcasts featured explicit demands for the killing of security forces.
2022-2023: Ongoing online content promoted the use of violence to enforce stay-at-home mandates.
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).Demikianlah Artikel Kanu Sentenced to Life in 10-Year Trial
Anda sekarang membaca artikel Kanu Sentenced to Life in 10-Year Trial dengan alamat link https://www.arablionz.pro/2025/12/kanu-sentenced-to-life-in-10-year-trial.html
0 Response to "Kanu Sentenced to Life in 10-Year Trial"
Posting Komentar