Presiding Judge James Omotosho delivered the judgment after reviewing evidence presented by the prosecution, which included video and broadcast materials in which Kanu allegedly made threatening statements, including one in September 2021 where he warned that “people would die” and “the whole world would stand still.” The court also cited Kanu’s role in issuing “sit-at-home” orders that disrupted daily life in the southeast, forcing schools, banks, and businesses to close, and found him guilty of leading a proscribed organization and inciting violence. Kanu’s own defense was foreclosed after he declined to present it, leaving the court to rely solely on the prosecution’s evidence.
Central to the legal debate surrounding Kanu’s conviction is the law under which he was charged. His lawyers argued that the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act of 2013 had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act of 2022, making the prosecution unconstitutional. They contended that convicting someone under a repealed statute is effectively a “trial without law,” citing the Nigerian Constitution’s requirement that an offense must be defined and in force at the time of trial. Kanu also sought to halt the High Court’s judgment through an appeal motion, claiming that the charges were invalid and his right to appeal should be respected.
The implications of this verdict extend far beyond the courtroom. Politically, it is a blow to IPOB, weakening the influence of a movement that has long relied on Kanu’s leadership and symbolic presence. Yet the legal controversy over the repealed law may result in further challenges, potentially setting a precedent for how terrorism statutes are applied in Nigeria. In the southeast, reactions are likely to be mixed, with some viewing the conviction as a necessary assertion of federal authority, while others see it as further disenfranchisement of a marginalized population.
Kanu’s status as a British citizen adds an international dimension to the case, and his conviction is likely to draw scrutiny from human rights advocates and the diaspora community. As the appeal process unfolds, the ruling will not only test the resilience of Nigeria’s legal system but also shape the nation’s response to separatist movements and political dissent.
The conviction of Nnamdi Kanu is a watershed moment in Nigeria’s political and legal history. While it represents a clear legal victory for the state, the unresolved questions surrounding the law used in his prosecution suggest that the story is far from over. How the courts and the government handle the fallout will determine whether this verdict brings lasting stability or fuels further unrest in the southeast.
By Bukola Tijani
