Terrorism: Why Nnamdi Kanu was given life imprisonment

‎Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court has sentenced Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) to life imprisonment after ten years of trial.

‎Justice Omotosho delivered the judgment on Thursday, four years after Kanu was arrested in Kenya under contentious circumstances and brought back to Nigeria.

‎He was subsequently charged with seven counts bordering on terrorism.

‎The judgement was delivered in Kanu’s absence after the IPOB leader insisted that the judgement would not be delivered in the terrorism charge the Federal Government entered against him.

‎Due to the drama that ensued, the presiding judge ordered security agents to bundle him out of the court room for ‘unruly behaviour.’

‎Omotosho stated that several broadcasts by Kanu, through Radio Biafra, constituted acts of terrorism, adding that his rhetoric and intention were anchored on violence.

‎The judge also asserted that Kanu’s sit-at-home order in South-Eastern states amounted to terrorism, stressing that the order violated South-easterners’ freedom of movement.

‎Justice Omotosho maintained that the IPOB leader lacked the constitutional power to order people to sit at home.

‎According to Justice Omotosho, from the evidence before the court, Kanu carried out preparatory terrorism via his broadcasts through which he ordered the killing of police and military officers.

‎The court said the IPOB leader is found guilty of committing acts of terrorism against the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

‎Kanu was convicted of all seven counts preferred against him even though the IPOB leader pleaded non-guilty to the charges.

‎Delivering the judgement, Justice Omotosho said Kanu didn’t show any remorse for his actions, adding that, throughout the trial, the IPOB leader “remained arrogant, corky and full of himself without realising the magnitude of his crime and the effects of what he has done against his people in the South-East.”

‎Having convicted Kanu of all counts, the presiding judge said he opted for life imprisonment instead of the death penalty.

‎He said: “The death penalty globally is now being frowned upon by the international community, Consequently, in the interest of justice, I hereby sentence the convict to life imprisonment for the said count one, four, five and six.”