A Federal High Court in Abuja has sentenced IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu to life imprisonment, ruling on counts 4, 5 and 6 of the terrorism charges filed against him by the Federal Government. The judgment comes after weeks of intense national attention, with the court ultimately refusing the prosecution’s push for the death sentence.
Justice James Omotosho, who delivered the verdict, said the prosecution succeeded in proving key allegations but insisted the case did not meet the threshold for capital punishment. He stressed that although the charges were grave, the law grants judges room for discretion especially where the circumstances call for an alternative to the death penalty.
During trial, government prosecutors argued fiercely for Kanu to face the harshest possible punishment. They linked his statements, broadcasts and alleged directives to a series of violent attacks, deaths and property destruction in the South-East. According to them, the severity of the offences demanded an uncompromising response.
Kanu’s defence team countered this narrative, insisting there was no concrete evidence tying him directly to any violent operation. They maintained that his remarks were political expressions protected under both Nigerian and international legal frameworks. The defence also accused the government of targeting Kanu to silence separatist sentiment.
In delivering judgment, Justice Omotosho acknowledged the charged political atmosphere surrounding the case but said the court’s duty was to follow the law, not public emotion. While he upheld the guilty verdict on selected counts, he said the prosecution failed to prove that Kanu’s actions justified a death sentence.
The court then imposed a life sentence, describing it as the most balanced punishment in light of the seriousness of the charges and the need to avoid deepening political tensions. The judge said the sentence reflects both justice and national stability.
Kanu’s legal team, reacting after the verdict, voiced disappointment but said they would review the judgment before taking a decision on whether to appeal. They reiterated their client’s claims of innocence and accused the state of using the court system to suppress dissent.
The ruling has already triggered widespread reactions across the country. While some groups say the life sentence is a fair middle ground, others argue it highlights Nigeria’s unresolved tensions over identity, governance and self-determination. More reactions are expected as the full impact of the judgment unfolds.
