Posted by Samuel on Thu 05th Feb, 2026 - tori.ng
Recall that Kanu was convicted on a seven-count terrorism charge preferred against him by the Federal Government.
The convicted leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has lodged a 22-point appeal challenging the Federal High Court’s November 20, 2025, ruling that sentenced him to life imprisonment for terrorism-related offenses.
Recall that Kanu was convicted on a seven-count terrorism charge preferred against him by the Federal Government.
In the notice of appeal, which he personally signed, Kanu 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 contended that the trial court failed to resolve the legal consequences of the disruption of his earlier trial following the September 2017 military operation known as Operation Python Dance II.
He told the appellate court that his residence at Afara-Ukwu was invaded by state agents during the operation, leading to deaths, destruction, and the collapse of the original trial process.
“The said operation resulted in deaths and destruction and triggered disruption of the earlier proceedings,” he stated.
According to him, the trial court ought to have first determined the legal effect of that disruption on the competence of the case before taking evidence and delivering judgment.
“The judgment of conviction was delivered on 20 November 2025 notwithstanding the unresolved foundational competence issues,” Kanu said.
Kanu further argued that Justice Omotosho erred in law by proceeding with trial and judgment without hearing and determining his pending preliminary objection, which challenged the competence of the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds.
“The Learned Trial Judge did not hear or determine the objection. The court proceeded with evidence and delivered judgment while the objection remained pending and undetermined,” he argued.
In another ground of appeal, Kanu maintained that the trial court proceeded to judgment and convicted him while his bail application was still pending, a development he said undermined the fairness of the trial.
The IPOB leader also faulted 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.
“Upon conviction, the Appellant was not afforded the opportunity to address the court in mitigation (allocutus).
“Sentence was imposed without allocutus. The court did not consider relevant mitigation or sentencing factors,” he said.
Kanu further described the life sentence as excessive and unlawful.
Kanu urged the Court of Appeal to quash his conviction on all counts in the charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015.
He also sought: An order setting aside the sentences imposed by the Federal High Court; and “An order of the Honourable Court of Appeal discharging and acquitting the Appellant in respect of all the counts.”
The IPOB leader informed the appellate court of his intention to be physically present during the hearing of the appeal.
“I desire to put my case and argument into writing and also adopt my argument orally in the court on the hearing of the appeal,” he stated, adding that he may conduct the appeal in person.