November 23, (THEWILL) — A Political solution is being canvased as the ultimate solution to the trial and conviction of leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu.
Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu, who holds a Masters of Law in terrorism and Dr. Sam Amadi, also a lawyer and Executive Director of the Abuja School of Social and Political Thoughts, say the political dimension of the trial also makes it vital to resolve the matter politically.
Explaining the dimension and implication of the political nature of the matter, Dr Amadi said, “The trial of Nnamdi Kanu is the political trial of Ndigbo. Even if those allegations are true, there will still be trials as many Nigerians who are enablers of terrorists are free. Ndigbo are facing persecution and they have been tried politically, but we should resist the anger to turn it into violence or killings in the South-East.
“The truth about the trial and conviction of Nnamdi Kanu,” said ex-first lady of Ondo State, Dr Betty Akeredolu, in response to Amadi’s statement in her post on X during the weekend.
For the Deputy House Speaker, dialogue remains the most effective way to resolve the matter, even though legal processes have continued.
He said, “All hope is not lost. A political solution is underway and we are working quietly but consistently to ensure that Nnamdi Kanu regains freedom.”
The ongoing legal processes referred to by Kalu involves the decision of Kanu’s legal counsel to appeal the life judgement handed down on Thursday by Justice James Omotoso to Kanu.
Counsel to Nnamdi Kanu, Aloy Ejimakor condemned the life sentence, describing it as a setback for Nigeria’s judiciary.
He said: “I feel very bad. I feel sad. It is a very bad day for the judiciary. It is very bad for the criminal justice system in Nigeria. This is the first time in my entire life as a lawyer that I have seen a man being convicted for mere words he uttered.”
He added that the defence team is preparing to challenge the verdict at the Court of Appeal, insisting that Kanu’s conviction was unfair and that due process was not followed.
For Methodist Archbishop of Okigwe Archdiocese, Most Rev. Livinus Biereonwu Onuagha, the sentence as a grave misjudgment and a reflection of systemic flaws in Nigeria’s legal and governance systems.
“When people who have taken up arms are being reintegrated into society, while someone who has not been linked to violence is given life imprisonment, many citizens begin to question the fairness of the system,” Archbishop Onuagha said. He also urged political leaders in the South-East to engage sincerely with the grievances of their people.
“Igbo politicians should recognise the realities on the ground and respond to the concerns of the region,” he said, stressing the importance of dialogue, justice, and equitable treatment for all citizens.
A group, the Southeast Revival Group in a note to THEWILL explained its support for the appeal. National Director of Publicity, Rt. Hon. Evang. Nnaemeka Aleke, stated that the group expressed deep 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.
The group insisted that Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution clearly forbids convicting any citizen on the basis of an offence not defined by an existing written law, noting that using a repealed statute to prosecute and convict anyone renders the entire trial void from the outset. SERG stated that it is both unconscionable and legally absurd to convict a person—regardless of the allegations—under a statute that no longer exists, arguing that the court’s decision placed convenience above constitutionality and speed above justice.
But a legal activist, Liborous Oshoma disagrees with SERG on the question of repealing the Act. He said that even when a law is repealed, it does not cancel actions or cases that were already started under the law, adding that Nigeria Evidence Act, Section 4, “saving clause,” protects ongoing cases from being dismissed just because the law has been updated or changed.
After almost a half a decade of trial, the Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday convicted the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, on multiple counts of terrorism, sealing a trial that has spanned several years and drawn both national and international interest.
Justice Omotosho’s judgment comes four years after Kanu was arrested in Kenya under controversial circumstances and returned to Nigeria in a move his lawyers have repeatedly described as an illegal rendition.
Kanu faced a seven-count charge covering terrorism, incitement and membership of an unlawful organisation.
In his ruling, Justice Omotosho said the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting that Kanu’s repeated broadcasts and directives posed serious threats to national security, public safety, and constitutional order.
He said the court had taken notice of his unruly behaviour on several occasions, but it would ignore his tantrums.
“He has not shown remorse, he has remained arrogant and unrepentant of what he has done to his people.
“I have listened to the allocution by a House of Representatives, Hon Obi Agocha, from Kanu’s constituency, but I am not moved by that except by a verse in the Bible, Matthew 23 verse 23, which states that Our Lord is merciful and no matter what the court will follow this admission of Jesus Christ.
“In addition, death is now frowned upon globally. Therefore, I sentenced him to life in imprisonment. In count three, he is sentenced to 20 years without any option of fine. On court seven he is hereby sentenced to 10 years. The judgement shall run concurrently. which says even if you have paid the tithes. The convict has a tendency of violence. Based on this, he must be kept in a facility that is suitable for him. Putting him in Kuje Custodial Centre may not be appropriate.
“I agree with the prosecution that the convict must not be allowed to use a computer device. He should be kept in any custodial centre in any part of the country.”
The court found Kanu guilty on counts one, two, and three, which centred on engaging in terrorist acts through incendiary public broadcasts.
In these, Kanu allegedly issued threats of killings, violence, and enforced the illegal “sit-at-home” orders that paralyzed economic and social life in parts of the South-East.
Justice Omotosho ruled that Kanu used his broadcasts and the IPOB platform to incite violence, enforce “sit-at-home” directives, and direct attacks against security personnel and civilians, describing these as “clear acts of terrorism” with widespread consequences for lives, livelihoods, public safety, and regional stability.
On counts four and five, Kanu was found guilty of inciting violence that led to the burning of police stations, the killing of security personnel and the destruction of federal property.
The court held that the prosecution established a direct link between Kanu’s directives and the wave of violent attacks by his followers, calling the evidence “uncontroverted.”
Citing video and audio recordings, Justice Omotosho noted that Kanu’s broadcasts—including threats that “people will die” and that “everything called Nigeria will perish”—demonstrated clear intent to carry out acts of terrorism.
On count seven, Kanu was convicted for illegally importing and concealing a radio transmitter in a container declared as used household items. The court described this as an attempt to operate a subversive communication system without lawful authorisation.
In his final judgment, Justice Omotosho described Kanu as “an international terrorist” whose actions inflicted severe harm “even to his own people.”
The court also upheld prosecution claims that Kanu threatened to bomb the British High Commission in Abuja and assassinate the then British High Commissioner, Catriona Laing, calling these acts terrorism of international dimension.
“Kanu claimed to be a freedom fighter, but the evidence before this court shows he has done more harm than good. He is a terrorist and must be treated as such,” the judge said.
Addressing Kanu’s claims of being denied a fair hearing, the court held that he was given every opportunity to defend himself but repeatedly declined to do so.
Kanu’s request for the case to be referred to the Court of Appeal was also rejected, with the court citing Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, which prohibits stay of proceedings in criminal trials. The court equally refused his fresh application for bail, noting that some of the concerns raised would be addressed during the delivery of judgement.
The court dismissed Kanu’s allegations of denial of fair hearing, ruling that he was given ample opportunity to defend himself but repeatedly refused to do so.
Felix Ifijeh is a journalist with years of professional reporting experience. Known for his keen news sense, compelling storytelling and commitment to accurate, impactful reporting, he has built a reputation for turning leads into clear, engaging, and well-structured reports that resonate with readers. His work reflects deep newsroom experience and a commitment to accurate, impactful journalism.
