The Federal High Court in Abuja recently delivered two verdicts bordering on terrorism in succession; one verdict which gave birth to Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu’s life imprisonment sentence, and the other handed a 20-year jail term to a convicted ISWAP commander, Hussaini Ismaila.
These two distinct verdicts have ignited debates and arguments among Nigerians, many of whom have questioned Nigeria’s Justice system, with others seeking clarification.
Pan-Atlantic Kompass reports that on Thursday, November 20, 2025, Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja convicted Kanu on all seven counts of terrorism-related charges.
The presiding judge held that Kanu was found guilty of the seven-count charge filed against him under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013.
The charges on which he was found guilty include: Count 1: Acts of Terrorism and Incitement: Making a broadcast with the intent to intimidate the population, specifically threatening violence, and that “people would die” and “the whole world would stand still” in furtherance of his separatist agitation. The court cited this as an act of terrorism.
Count 2: Inciting Violence and Enforcing Sit-at-Home: Making a series of broadcasts threatening violence and killings, including directives to enforce a “sit-at-home” order across the South-East region, which the court held was an unconstitutional act and an act of terrorism.
Count 3: Membership/Leadership of a Proscribed Group: Belonging to and leading the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), which had been officially declared and gazetted as a terrorist organization by the Nigerian government.
Counts 4 & 5: Inciting Violence during #EndSARS: Inciting violence during the #EndSARS protests, which resulted in the killing of security personnel and the destruction of government properties in Lagos.
Other Charges: The charges also included engaging in acts of terrorism, issuing threats, and providing guidance on how to make bombs to be used on government facilities.
The conviction translated to Kanu’s life imprisonment sentence.
Omotosho, while concluding the judgment in what was the last phase of the proceeding that started at 9am and concluded at about 4:30 pm, sentenced Kanu to life imprisonment in relation to counts one, two, four, five, and six of the seven-count charge
The presiding judge ruled: “A person who is found guilty of the offence will get a maximum of a death sentence. The death penalty is increasingly frowned upon by the international community. Consequently, and in the interest of justice, I hereby sentence the convict, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment on counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 instead of the death penalty.
“With respect to count 3, he is hereby sentenced to 20 years imprisonment with no option of fine, and for count 7, he is sentenced to five years with no option of fine. To extend mercy, I order that the sentences shall run concurrently.”
Kanu’s life imprisonment sentence comes just a few days after the same Federal High Court, Abuja, sentenced an ISWAP commander, Hussaini Ismaila (known as Mai Tangaran), to 20 years in prison.
Ismaila, who pleaded guilty, was convicted of coordinating multiple 2012 attacks on police facilities in Kano State.
Ismaila was convicted for coordinating multiple simultaneous attacks across Kano, targeting key government and security installations.
The primary targets included the Police Command Headquarters, the Kano State Police Headquarters, several police stations, and an office of the State Security Service (SSS).
The coordinated bombings and subsequent gun battles reportedly resulted in the deaths of over 185 people.
Like Kanu, Justice Emeka Nwite, judge of the Federal High Court in Abuja, convicted Ismaila on a four-count charge under the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013 but was instead sentenced to 20 years in jail.
The disparity between Kanu’s life imprisonment sentence and Ismaila’s 20-year sentence has become a subject of discussion.
One of the legal arguments on Kanu’s life imprisonment sentence is the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013.
Kanu, as well as Ismaila, were both convicted based on charges filed under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013.
The duo’s conviction came after the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act 2013 was repealed and replaced by a completely new piece of legislation, codenamed The Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022
The 2022 Act was signed into law on May 12, 2022.
Just before Kanu’s sentencing, he had objected to his sentencing based on the repealed law.
Kanu argued that he can’t be convicted or sentenced based on a law that has been repealed and is no longer in use.
“My Lord, there is no judgment today because we have joined issues in the matter,” Kanu said.
But the judge, amid the commotion, ordered operatives of the State Security Service (SSS) to eject him outside the courtroom and then declared a recess.
“You’re biased. You don’t know the law. This is not law,” Kanu yelled at the judge as he was being led outside the courtroom by the SSS operatives.
Ruling on the matter after the commotion, Justice Omotosho also dismissed Kanu’s argument that he should be freed because the law upon which he was being tried was already repealed and non-existent.
The judge said the Terrorism Prevention Act 2013, upon which the counts were filed, was still an extant law at the time Kanu committed the terrorism offences which were between 2018 and 2021, citing Section 98 of the Act which supports continued trial and conviction of a defendant charged based on the law before it was repealed.
Pan-Atlantic Kompass also reports that during the verdict reading on Thursday, Adegboyega Awomolo, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and lead Counsel for the Federal Government, asked the court to impose a death sentence on Kanu.
Awomolo urged the court to impose the maximum sentence allowed under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013.
Awomolo argued: “My Lord, consequent upon the conviction, nothing further remains but the lawful imposition of sentence.
“The punishment prescribed for the offences in Counts One, Two, Four, Five, and Six, pursuant to Section 12H of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013, is death.
“With all sense of humility, I say as a prosecutor that this court has no discretion in that regard.
“The only sentence Your Lordship can impose for Counts One, Two, Four, Five, and Six is death, because the law empowers you to do so, and we expect that you will.”
However, Justice Omotosho, in his ruling held that he granted a clemency plea to deliver a life imprisonment sentence judgment on Kanu.
Reactions
Reacting to Kanu’s life imprisonment sentence, Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, the lawmaker representing Abia South Senatorial district of Abia State at the Senate, said the judgment shows the “hypocrisy” of the government.
In a statement on Thursday signed by his media adviser, Uchenna Awom, the former Senate minority leader described the sentencing as a preconceived plot against the IPOB leader.
Abaribe said: “Is it not an irony that negotiations and peace deals with rampaging terrorists in the North East and North West were gleefully initiated by local, state, and federal authorities, just like the amnesty to ex-militants in the South South, who were rewarded with lucrative oil pipeline contracts. This is to say that justice in Nigeria is not for the South East.
“So, we are not surprised. Our people can only endure and hope for a time when justice in Nigeria would become the sine qua non.
“We have done our best; we have variously made the case for the authorities to be circumspect and at least accede to pardon for the sake of unity and inclusiveness.”
Also, the South East Revival Group condemned Kanu’s life imprisonment sentence, describing it as a judicial aberration, a constitutional violation, and a deliberate assault on the principles of fair hearing, natural justice, and due process.
In a statement issued in Abuja and signed by its National Director of Publicity, Nnaemeka Aleke, SERG said the judgment is a mockery of Nigerian jurisprudence.
SERG expressed shock that the court proceeded to convict Kanu on charges framed under the repealed Terrorism Prevention Act 2013, even though that law has been replaced with the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act 2022.
“It is both unconscionable and legally absurd to convict anyone under a law that no longer exists,” the statement said, describing the ruling as prioritising “speed over justice” and “convenience over constitutionality.”
The organisation also faulted Justice Omotosho for allegedly pushing ahead with the trial despite multiple unresolved motions, appeals, and jurisdictional objections pending before the Court of Appeal.
According to SERG, proceeding under such circumstances amounted to “judicial aggression” and “judicial avoidance,” raising serious concerns about neutrality and adherence to procedure.
“The court has no authority to proceed when its jurisdiction is in doubt, especially in a criminal trial involving the liberty of a citizen,” the group said, adding that the judge ignored key matters relating to extraordinary rendition, legality of the charge sheet, and constitutional issues still awaiting appellate review.
Below are more reactions;
