The judge stated he should sentence Mr. Kanu to death, but was influenced by the biblical teaching that one should show mercy. The Federal H...
The judge stated he should sentence Mr. Kanu to death, but was influenced by the biblical teaching that one should show mercy.
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday handed down a life sentence to Biafra activist Nnamdi Kanu for terrorism-related activities.
Trial judge James Omotosho, who found Mr. Kanu guilty on all seven charges, stated that he should receive the death penalty due to the seriousness of the offenses and the defendant's lack of regret, but was influenced by religious teachings advocating mercy.
Mr. Omotosho mentioned that he referenced the Book of Matthew from the Bible to reduce Mr. Kanu's sentence to life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. As a result, he sentenced the convicted individual to life imprisonment for charges 1, 4, 5, and 6, "instead of a death sentence."
He stated, "Regarding charge 3, he received a 20-year prison sentence without a fine. For charge 7, he was given a five-year prison term."
He requested that the sentences be served at the same time.
The judge further decided that he must not have access to electronic devices and should remain in protective confinement.
He requested the seizure of the radio transmitters, which the prosecution claimed he brought into the country in 2015, by the federal government.
Mr. Kanu's conviction on Thursday echoes the case of another contentious Biafra activist,Simon Ekpa, by a Finnish court on September 1. However, Mr. Ekpa was given a lighter sentence of six years in prison.
Both individuals were found guilty of employing terrorism as a means to advocate for the independence of Nigeria's Igbo-majority Southeast region and portions of adjacent areas as a separate nation known as Biafra.
Over the years, through multiple online streams, they encouraged violence and made threats of death against security officers and their families, directed the demolition of police stations and other governmental buildings as well as foreign embassies.
Speaking about Mr. Kanu's behavior during the trial, which began in 2015, Mr. Omotosho mentioned that he observed Mr. Kanu's disruptive actions from the beginning of the case up until now, including during Thursday's session when he strongly insisted that the court could not continue with the scheduled judgment. The judge had to instruct the personnel from the State Security Service (SSS) to remove him from the courtroom for the remainder of the lengthy proceedings.
He mentioned that his examination of the case file, starting from its beginning in 2015, revealed that "There is no question that the convicted individual has not behaved properly during this time. He created a delay and then claimed he was being held illegally."
The judge stated that the prisoner was filled with arrogance, self-confident, confrontational, overly self-assured, lacking regret, and indifferent to the outcomes of his behavior.
The judge emphasized during his five-hour-long ruling that the prosecution allowed the evidence provided by them to remain unchallenged due to the lack of a defense in the case.
Mr. Omotosho stated that, regardless of the prisoner's behavior, the court would not take that into account during his sentencing.
"The court is showing him only mercy. The court has been reminded to impose the death sentence on the convicted individual," the judge stated.
"I need to balance justice with compassion," the judge stated, mentioning he would refer to chapter 22, verse 23 of the Gospel of Matthew.
It is within this note that I intend to heed the warning of Jesus Christ," he added, noting that "the death penalty is generally disapproved worldwide.
He stated, "I hereby condemn the prisoner to a life sentence for Charges 1, 4, 5, and 6 rather than the death penalty. Life is sacred in the eyes of God."
Regarding count 3, he has received a 20-year prison sentence.
For count 7, he receives a five-year prison sentence without the possibility of a fine.
He mentioned that the sentence would be served at the same time.
He mentioned that the prisoner "has a inclination toward aggression; it is this that necessitates his placement in a facility appropriate for his detention."
He further emphasized that Mr. Kanu should not be permitted to have any digital equipment. Should he need to, it must be under supervision and with the counsel of the National Security Adviser.
Considering the number of individuals who have lost their lives due to his actions, the judge stated, the prisoner "deserves to be placed in protective custody. I decree that the prisoner be held in protective custody at any detention facility within the nation."
"The transmitter is surrendered to the Federal Government," Mr Omotosho added.
Charges
The judge earlier found Mr. Kanu guilty of six terrorism chargesSeven charges were brought by the prosecution. Among the terrorism-related charges for which the judge found the IPOB leader guilty are acts of terrorism, inciting violence against security forces and their families, foreign embassies and officials, the Lagos State government, and individuals who violated the sit-at-home order in the South-east region. The court sentenced him to life imprisonment for these offenses.
Mr Kanu was also found guilty of illegally bringing inA Tram 50L radio transmitter was hidden in a container labeled as used household items and smuggled into Nigeria in 2015. The prosecution claimed he stored the transmitter in Ubulisluzor, within the Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State. The judge imposed a five-year prison sentence for this offense.
He was also found guilty of being part of the banned Independent People of Biafra (IPOB), which was classified as a terrorist group by a court ruling in September 2017. He received a 20-year prison sentence for this crime.
In its ruling, the Päijät-Häme District Court in Finland imposed a six-year prison sentence on Mr. Ekpa.
Prior to sentencing Mr. Kanu on Thursday, the judge heard from the prosecution's legal representative, Adegboyega Awomolo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, and Obi Aguocha, a member of the House of Representatives, who represents Mr. Kanu's electoral area — the Umuahia North/Umuahia South/Ikwuano Federal Constituency.
Although Mr. Aguocha requested the judge to show mercy in the sentencing, Mr. Awomolo demanded the death penalty for five of the seven charges.
Mr. Aguocha stated, "The issue has reached a conclusion. For the time being, I am not his attorney. I cannot confirm if there was an appeal regarding safety, but for now, he is my brother in the Lord."
He is my friend. I studied with him. We went to primary and secondary school together, although he was younger than me. However, it is my duty and responsibility as a member of the National Assembly to advocate for him, along with the Lord.
However, the prosecutor stated that the judge had no authority to make any sentencing decisions, due to how the law was structured when the terrorism charges were filed. He further mentioned that the court was obligated to sentence Mr. Kanu to death for the terrorism-related counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6.
The senior lawyer stated, "There is nothing left other than the legal application of sentences. The penalty set for the crimes mentioned in counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 is the death sentence."
Under Section 12(h) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013. My Lord, I state, Sir, as the prosecutor, this court has no discretion in this matter.
The sole punishment that my Lordship will impose for counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 is the death penalty. This court has the authority to do so and, with all due respect, is obligated to do so.
The prosecutor further requested the court to prohibit the inmate from using electronic equipment and to place him in the most secure detention facility.
The accusations arose from his militant separatist efforts to secure independence for the Igbo-majority southeastern region of Nigeria, known as Biafra.
A Nigerian-British dual citizen consistently denied any misconduct but did not provide a defense when requested by the court.
Background
The case remained in court since 2015, moving through four trial judges during its decade-long process.
Mr. Omotosho, who assumed the trial in March of this year, was the fourth judge to be responsible for the case. The previous three judges stepped down one after another following Mr. Kanu's allegations of prejudice against them.
Mr. Kanu was held in SSS custody between 2015 and 2017, until the previous trial judge, Binta Nyako, approved his release on bail.
However, he left the country when soldiers invaded his home in Afara-Ukwu, close to Umuahia, in Abia State, during September 2017.
He was apprehended by the Nigerian authorities in Kenya in June 2021 and returned to Nigeria to proceed with his trial. His absence from the country halted the legal process for approximately four years.
The case, which began in 2015 with accusations of treasonous felony, was later changed to a terrorism charge after the federal government amended the allegations to reflect Mr. Kanu's inflammatory broadcasts. These included during the 2020 #EndSARS protests and on multiple occasions between 2018 and 2021, when he was abroad.
In October 2022, the Court of Appeal in Abuja dismissed the charges, citing the unlawful nature of his capture in Kenya and the extraordinary rendition to Nigeria in June 2021. The court ruled that the Nigerian government's illegality rendered the charges invalid.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision in December 2023.
Although the Supreme Court stated that Mr. Kanu's kidnapping and his extraordinary transfer to Nigeria was unlawful, unjust, and oppressive, it decided that the government's actions did not impact the legitimacy of the charges or remove the Federal High Court's authority to prosecute him.
Following the prosecution's conclusion of its case in June this year, with five witnesses testifying, Mr. Kanu submitted a no-case argument, claiming that the prosecution did not present credible evidence against him. However, Mr. Omotosho rejected the no-case submission in September, stating that Mr. Kany had a case to address and should proceed with his defense.
Since then, multiple legal sessions have been set for Mr. Kanu to begin his defense. Amidst this, Mr. Kanu abruptly withdrew his attorneys and informed the court that he would represent himself.
The case was postponed multiple times to ensure the defense had sufficient time, as Mr. Kanu insisted there was no legitimate accusation to defend. He claimed that the charges against him "were filed under a repealed terrorism law."
He submitted a notice of initial objection, in which he highlighted several concerns, including the fact that he was being charged under a law that had been repealed and the unlawful nature of his extraordinary transfer from Kenya, while urging the court to dismiss the charges against him and release him.
The court in its ruling on Thursdaydismissed all the issuesMr. Kanu presented a preliminary objection.
Copyright 2025 Premium Times. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (okay1).
Tagged: Nigeria, Governance, Legal and Judicial Affairs, West Africa
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
COMMENTS