The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday delivered a sweeping and consequential ruling in the terrorism trial of Indigenous People of Biafra leader Nnamdi Kanu, convicting him on Counts One, Two, and Three for acts the court described as terrorism through inciting broadcasts. Justice James Omotosho held that the prosecution presented uncontroverted evidence showing that Kanu used Radio Biafra broadcasts to promote violence, including threats of killings and the declaration of sit-at-home orders across the South East.
The conviction on Count One falls under Section 1(2)(a) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act of 2013. The court relied heavily on audio recordings from 2018 to 2021 in which Kanu allegedly directed IPOB members and its militant wing to target security operatives and civilians. Justice Omotosho dismissed the defence’s objections on jurisdiction and claims that the charges were filed under repealed laws, stating that the offences remain prosecutable under the updated 2022 Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act.
Sentencing on the three counts will take place after the court concludes its decision on the remaining charges, which include managing a proscribed organisation and treasonable felony.
The judgment followed a chaotic start to the day’s proceedings. Shortly after the case was called, Kanu, who is representing himself, interrupted the court repeatedly, insisting that there could be no judgment because he had filed several pending motions. He demanded that the court cite statutory provisions authorising the waiver of his final written address and challenged the legitimacy of the charges.
His persistent interruptions prompted Justice Omotosho to order security operatives to remove him from the courtroom. Kanu resisted surrendering the microphone and argued loudly that he was entitled to present his final written address and that the charges against him were not rooted in any existing written law. He was eventually escorted out, leading the judge to proceed with the judgment in his absence.
Justice Omotosho noted that the defendant had been given multiple opportunities to enter his defence.
“I begged the defendant passionately to enter his defence, but he refused. That shows he chose to rest his case on the prosecution, which is a risky decision,” the judge said.
Timeline of the Judgment Delivery
1:23pm: Court finds Kanu guilty of Count Three.
1:13pm: Court finds him guilty of Count Two.
1:07pm: Court finds him guilty of Count One.
1:02pm: Judge rules that evidence proved Kanu ordered sit-at-home directives in the South East.
1:01pm: Judge notes that Kanu refused to enter a defence or respond to the broadcast allegations.
12:34pm: Judge states the defendant deliberately refused to call witnesses and relied entirely on challenging procedure.
10:14am: Judge decides to deliver the judgment in Kanu’s absence due to unruly behaviour.
9:59am: Kanu argues that his final written address cannot be waived and refuses to give up the microphone.
9:42am: Kanu insists the charges against him do not exist in any written Nigerian law.
9:34am: Kanu admits he did not call witnesses but claims he filed motions that were allegedly ignored.
9:12am: Kanu begins objecting before judgment is read, insisting the court lacks jurisdiction.
Kanu’s prosecution has been one of Nigeria’s most contentious legal battles in the last decade. First arrested in 2015 on charges of treasonable felony, he fled the country in 2017 after a military operation in Abia State. He was rearrested in Kenya in June 2021 and returned to Nigeria under controversial circumstances that his legal team describes as an extraordinary rendition. The charges against him were expanded to 15 counts, including terrorism, managing a proscribed group, and incitement.
Representing the Federal Government is Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, while Kanu represents himself in the ongoing proceedings.
The court is expected to rule on the remaining charges in the coming sessions, after which sentencing will follow.
The day’s proceedings echoed earlier drama when, shortly after the case was called, Kanu, who represented himself, erupted in protest over the alleged waiver of his final written address. Shouting demands for legal citations, he accused the bench of ignorance and bias, leading Justice Omotosho to order his temporary removal by security agents amid a brief scuffle captured on video.
