Kanu Convicted by a Federal High Court in Abuja on three terrorism counts after threatening broadcasts and incitement — a landmark ruling
A Federal High Court in Abuja has delivered a shocking verdict: Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, has been convicted on three of the seven terrorism charges brought by the Federal Government.
Also read: Nnamdi Kanu’s decade-long trial faces new appeal
The presiding judge, Justice James Omotosho, relied heavily on video interviews and broadcasts in which Kanu allegedly incited violence against Nigeria.
The court found Kanu guilty of making a series of broadcasts to incite killings and unrest, including calls to enforce the controversial “sit-at-home” order in the South-East. According to the ruling, his repeated threats and commands during these broadcasts amount to acts of terrorism.
Kanu was also found guilty of incitement during the #EndSARS protests, where his broadcasts allegedly spurred violence, resulting in attacks on security personnel and government property in Lagos.
The judge rejected Kanu’s claim that he was denied a fair hearing, affirming that due process was followed.
Justice Omotosho emphasised that under the law, a person found guilty of these terrorism offences could face the maximum penalty — including the death sentence.
He described Kanu’s declarations as “unconstitutional” and “subversive,” noting that the sit-at-home directives created widespread disruption across the South-East, leaving towns deserted.
In another damning detail, the court noted that Kanu, who calls himself the Director of Radio and Television of Biafra, once broadcast that the Nigerian army would perish and that Nigeria itself would cease to exist in Biafra.
This ruling marks a significant moment in Nigeria’s judicial and political history. For many, the conviction of Kanu underscores the seriousness with which the state now treats separatist agitation and violent broadcasts.
Also read: Nnamdi Kanu political solution gains strong push in parliament
The decision may also deepen tensions across the South-East, raising questions about reconciliation, accountability, and the future of separatist movements.
