By Nchetachi Chukwuajah
The judgment in the seven-count amended terrorism and treasonable felony charge brought against the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, by the Federal Government has come and gone as it was handed down today.
Justice James Omotosho sentenced him to life imprisonment on Counts 1, 4, 5, 6 while he was sentenced to 20 years on Count 3 and five years on Count 7.
The case has been ongoing since October 14, 2015, when Kanu was first arraigned on an 11-count charge bordering on terrorism, reasonable felony, conspiracy, intimidation and membership of an unlawful organisation.
Justice Binta Nyako had partially struck out charges against Kanu in 2017 and granted him conditional bail on health grounds.
The case was, however, stalled for about three years due to Kanu’s disappearance from the country following soldiers’ attack on his home in Afaraukwu, Umuahia, Abia State, in September 2017.
The court later revoked his bail in March 2019 and ordered his re-arrest, after which he was re-arraigned at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Kanu, a dual citizen of Nigeria and the United Kingdom (UK), has consistently denied any wrongdoing, maintaining on different occasions that he had the right to self-determination.
The IPOB leader’s first major victory came on October 13, 2022, when the Court of Appeal in Abuja delivered a judgment discharging him of terrorism charges.
The justices held that the Federal Government violated international law in the manner of his extradition from Kenya in June 2021.
The appellate court’s ruling meant the Federal High Court lost its authority to continue Kanu’s trial.
However, on December 15, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling, stating that though Kanu was unlawfully repatriated, such illegality did not prevent Nigerian courts of jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court thereafter referred the case back to the Federal High Court to continue the trial on the remaining seven counts.
Not done, Kanu returned to the Court of Appeal in 2024 to challenge the proscription of IPOB.
The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal for want of merit, refusing to render IPOB’s designation as a terrorist organisation invalid.
The appellate court, in a ruling by Justice Abang, held that Kanu failed to establish a miscarriage of justice in the judgment of a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, in the matter.
Following the ruling, the Federal Government maintained all terrorism-related charges against Kanu that had survived earlier court reviews.
The case was brought back to the Federal High Court in line with the Supreme Court’s 2023 directive, but was later reassigned to Justice James Omotosho, the fourth sit to preside over Kanu’s case.
Kanu was re-arraigned on March 21, 2025, on the seven-count amended charge bordering on terrorism and treasonable felony, to which he pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution closed its case in June this year, after which Kanu filed a no-case submission which was dismissed.
Following the ruling, he filed a motion he personally signed on October 21, listing serving and retired public officers, alongside unnamed individuals, as proposed defence witnesses.
He said he planned to call 23 witnesses, divided into “ordinary but material witnesses” and “vital and compellable” ones, to be summoned under Section 232 of the Evidence Act, 2011, and also asked for 90 days to conclude his defence.
At the scheduled hearing on October 23 for Kanu to open his defence, he announced the disengagement of his legal team led by former Attorney-General of the Federation, Kanu Agabi.
He maintained that he would defend himself, prompting the judge to adjourn until the following day.
At the resumed trial on October 24, Kanu said he could not proceed with his defence because he had yet to retrieve his case file from his disengaged lawyers. The judge subsequently adjourned till Monday, 27 October.
However, at the rescheduled hearing, Kanu said he had reviewed the prosecution’s case and found it “not worth defending.”
The IPOB leader maintained that there was “no extant law in this country upon which the prosecution can predicate the charges,” adding that he would not enter a defence in a charge “that does not exist under any Nigerian law.”
The judge then directed him to file a written address to that effect and have it served on the prosecution.
The trial judge also advised him to consult criminal law experts on the implications of his decision, then fixed November 4, 5, and 6 for further proceedings.
Kanu, on October 30, however, filed a fresh application for the striking out of the terrorism charges, urging the trial judge to order his release from custody.
On Tuesday, November 4, Kanu, who announced his appearance for himself, told the court that he would not go back to detention unless the charges against him were clearly shown to him.
Kanu maintained that his detention at the facility of the Department of State Services (DSS) was illegal and unlawful because there was no known law he had breached.
He accused the court of violating the Supreme Court judgment that condemned his extradition from Kenya and demanded that the judge immediately discharge him.
When reminded that the Supreme Court remitted the case for a fresh trial, he maintained that the terrorism charge against him was incompetent, invalid, and illegal.
Citing Section 36 (12) of the Nigerian Constitution, Kanu said there was no written law on terrorism offences in Nigeria, hence there was nothing for him to defend.
He said: “In Nigeria today, the constitution is the supreme law. There is no provision for terrorism offence in the constitution. There is no valid charge against me. I will not go back to any detention today.
“Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act has been repealed. I cannot put in defence under a repealed law. I will not do that.
“Tell any lawyer to show me the valid charge. I appeal to you to please take judicial notice of the repeal of the terrorism law. I am not ready to go back to detention today unless I am shown the valid charge against me.
“I cannot be tried under a law that has been repealed. A law that is not written in our Constitution. Prosecuting me under a repealed law is a violation of my fundamental right.”
Subsequently, Justice Omotosho, after persuading Kanu to enter his defence, adjourned further hearing till Wednesday for Kanu to either enter his defence or waive his right to do so.
On November 7, 2025, the judge fixed November 20 for judgment, ruling that Kanu could not claim denial of a fair hearing since he refused to utilise the opportunity given to him.
However, on November 12, Kanu filed a fresh appeal before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal, seeking to stop Justice Omotosho from delivering judgment.
Kanu’s 10-year court trial and his defence have been mired in constitutional objections, procedural disputes, and last-minute appeals to stall or neutralise the trial court outcomes.
The timeline of the decade-long case shows Kanu was discharged in 2022 by the Appeal Court, the charges against him were restated in 2023 by the Supreme Court, IPOB’s proscription as a terrorist organisation was upheld in 2024 by the Appeal Court, and in 2025, Kanu filed a new appeal seeking to stop the judgment of the Federal High Court scheduled for November 20.
While delivering his judgment on Thursday, November 20, Justice Omotosho said he ought to sentence him to death but for his decision to show him mercy.
Justice Omotosho also said the sentences handed down should run concurrently and also ruled that Kanu should not be allowed to use digital devices and be kept in protective custody.
