Nnamdi Kanu Challenges Federal High Court Judgment at Court of Appeal

By Mercy Omotosho

Detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal in Abuja, challenging his conviction and multiple sentences, including several life imprisonment terms, imposed by the Federal High Court, Abuja.

In the notice dated February 4, 2026, Kanu appealed against the judgment delivered on November 20, 2025, by Justice James K. Omotosho in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, where he was convicted on seven counts bordering on terrorism-related offences and unlawful importation of a radio transmitter.

Kanu was convicted of committing acts preparatory to terrorism, issuing threats through broadcasts, leading and belonging to IPOB, inciting the killing of Nigerian security personnel and their families, directing the manufacture of bombs and importing a radio transmitter without licence.

He received life imprisonment on five counts, a 20-year jail term on one count, and five years’ imprisonment on another, all without an option of fine.

Now held at a correctional centre in Sokoto State, the appellant is asking the Court of Appeal to quash his convictions, set aside the sentences, and discharge and acquit him on all counts.

In the 22 grounds of appeal filed, Kanu alleged multiple errors of law, misdirection, and denial of fair hearing during the trial.

He argued that the trial court failed to address foundational jurisdictional and procedural issues before proceeding to hear evidence and deliver judgment.

One of the central complaints relates to the events of September 2017, when his residence at Afara-Ukwu, Abia State, was invaded during Operation Python Dance II.

Kanu maintained that the operation disrupted the original trial proceedings and that the trial court failed to determine the legal consequences of that disruption before continuing with the case.

He also contended that the trial court proceeded to judgment without first hearing and determining his preliminary objection challenging the competence of the proceedings, as well as a pending bail application filed during the trial.

The appellant further argued that his absence from Nigeria between 2017 and 2021 was wrongly used against him, despite evidence showing that the absence was compelled by the 2017 military operation.

Kanu challenged the validity of the retrial, stating that the Court of Appeal had, on October 13, 2022, declared the earlier proceedings a nullity ab initio. He argued that the trial court failed to properly resolve the effect of that decision before retrying and convicting him.

In another ground, he faulted the trial court for relying on an interim stay of execution order in a manner that, he claimed, undermined the finality of the appellate court’s earlier judgment of nullity and discharge.

Kanu also raised the issue of double jeopardy, arguing that the retrial exposed him to renewed prosecution over substantially the same facts and allegations, contrary to Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution.

On the substantive offences, the appellant challenged the sufficiency of evidence on all counts. He argued that no admissible evidence proved any preparatory act of terrorism, that alleged broadcasts were not properly authenticated and that no witness testified to hearing or being influenced by the alleged inciting statements.

He further contended that there was no proof of his membership or leadership of IPOB, insisting that the trial court failed to give effect to a subsisting Federal High Court ruling delivered on March 1, 2017, on the status of the group.

On the allegation of directing the manufacture of bombs, Kanu argued that no explosive device was tendered in evidence and that no witness testified to acting on any such directive.

He also challenged his conviction for importing a radio transmitter, arguing that the alleged transmitter was not recovered from him and that there was no proper chain of custody linking the exhibit to him.

Kanu further argued that the trial court erred in overruling his no-case submission without applying the correct legal test and that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

Another major issue raised in the appeal is the application of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013. Kanu argued that the law had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, before judgment was delivered, and that the trial court failed to properly address the effect of the repeal and any transitional provisions.

He also faulted the assumption of jurisdiction over allegations with extraterritorial elements, including broadcasts allegedly made outside Nigeria, without compliance with statutory conditions governing extraterritorial jurisdiction.

On fair hearing, the appellant claimed he was not allowed to file or present a final written address before judgment was delivered and that he was denied the opportunity to make allocutus before sentencing.

Among the reliefs sought, Kanu asked the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal, quash his conviction on all counts, set aside the sentences imposed by the Federal High Court, and enter a verdict of discharge and acquittal.

He also indicated his desire to be present at the hearing of the appeal, stating that he may conduct the appeal in person, while also expressing his intention to present written arguments and adopt them orally before the court.

The appeal lists Kanu as the appellant and the Federal Republic of Nigeria, represented by the Attorney-General of the Federation, as the respondent.