The convicted leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a 22-ground appeal challenging the November 20, 2025 judgment of the Federal High Court in Abuja that sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Kanu was convicted on seven counts of terrorism preferred against him by the Federal Government. In the notice of appeal, which he personally signed, he argued that the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho, erred in law and that the proceedings resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.
In his first ground of appeal, Kanu faulted the trial court for failing to address what he described as the foundational disruption of his trial following the September 2017 invasion of his Afara-Ukwu residence during Operation Python Dance II. He maintained that the military operation led to deaths, destruction, and a breakdown of the original trial process, raising serious questions about the competence of the proceedings.
According to him, the trial court proceeded to take evidence and deliver judgment without first determining the legal consequences of that disruption.
Kanu further argued that the trial judge erred by failing to hear and determine his pending preliminary objection, which challenged the court’s jurisdiction and competence to continue with the case. He said the objection, supported by affidavit evidence, remained unresolved even as the court proceeded to judgment.
The IPOB leader also contended that his bail application was left undetermined before conviction, which he said undermined the fairness of the trial.
Additionally, he challenged the sentencing process, arguing that the court imposed sentence without taking his allocutus—the opportunity for a convicted person to address the court in mitigation. He described the sentence as excessive and unlawful, claiming that relevant mitigating factors were ignored.
Kanu is asking the Court of Appeal to quash his conviction, set aside the sentence imposed by the Federal High Court, and discharge and acquit him on all counts in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015.
He also informed the appellate court of his desire to be present during the hearing of the appeal, stating that he may choose to conduct the appeal in person, both in writing and through oral submissions.
Comments