The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has formally approached the Court of Appeal in Abuja to challenge his conviction and life imprisonment sentence imposed by the Federal High Court on terrorism-related charges. The appeal represents the most significant legal step taken so far by the separatist leader since his conviction in November 2025 and signals a renewed effort to overturn both the judgment and the severity of the punishment handed down by the trial court.
In a Notice of Appeal dated February 4, 2026, and filed under appeal number CA/ABJ/CR/…/2026, Kanu is asking the appellate court to reverse the judgment delivered in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015. In that case, the Federal High Court found him guilty on seven counts bordering on terrorism and related offences, ultimately sentencing him to life imprisonment.
Kanu’s conviction followed a prolonged and politically sensitive trial that drew national and international attention. In November 2025, the trial court held that the IPOB leader had committed acts preparatory to, or in furtherance of, terrorism, contrary to Section 1(2)(b) of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013. For this offence alone, the court imposed a life sentence.
Among the counts for which Kanu was convicted was his alleged role in making a broadcast on or about May 30, 2021, which was received in Nigeria. Prosecutors argued that the broadcast was intended to intimidate the general population and instil fear, particularly through a directive that anyone who defied a sit-at-home order should “prepare a will.” The prosecution maintained that the statement amounted to a deadly threat and formed part of a broader campaign of intimidation linked to acts of violence in parts of the South-East.
In his appeal, however, Kanu is challenging not only the substance of the conviction but also the procedure adopted by the trial court in arriving at the sentence. Central to his argument is the claim that the Federal High Court erred in law by imposing sentence without granting him the right of allocutus. Allocutus refers to the opportunity afforded to a convicted person to address the court personally before sentencing, usually to offer mitigating statements or plead for leniency.
According to Kanu, the denial of this right amounted to a fundamental procedural flaw that rendered the sentencing process defective. He argued that the opportunity to speak in mitigation is a well-established principle of criminal justice and that its denial violated his right to fair hearing as guaranteed under Nigerian law.
Beyond the issue of allocutus, the IPOB leader further contended that the trial court failed to properly consider relevant mitigating factors and essential sentencing considerations before imposing the maximum punishment of life imprisonment. His legal team argued that the court did not sufficiently weigh factors such as proportionality, individual circumstances, and the broader context of the offences before arriving at its decision.
In the reliefs sought, Kanu urged the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal in its entirety and to quash his conviction on all counts. He is also asking the appellate court to set aside the life imprisonment sentence imposed by the trial judge.
Specifically, the appeal seeks “an Order of the Honourable Court of Appeal quashing, reversing and setting aside the sentences/punishment imposed on the Appellant by the Honourable trial Federal High Court Judge in the charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015.” In addition, Kanu is requesting “an Order of the Honourable Court of Appeal discharging and acquitting the Appellant in respect of all the counts in charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015.”
The notice of appeal also asks the court to grant any further orders it may deem appropriate in the interest of justice, a standard prayer that gives the appellate court latitude to fashion remedies beyond those expressly listed.
The Federal Republic of Nigeria is named as the respondent in the appeal, setting the stage for another high-profile legal contest between the separatist leader and the Nigerian state. Legal analysts say the appeal is likely to focus heavily on questions of due process, sentencing procedure, and the interpretation of terrorism-related statutes.
Kanu’s filing marks the latest chapter in a long-running legal and political saga. Since his arrest and extradition to Nigeria, his case has remained a flashpoint in national discourse, particularly in the South-East, where IPOB commands a significant following. Supporters have consistently argued that he is being politically persecuted, while the federal government has maintained that he must answer for actions it says contributed to violence, insecurity, and loss of life.
Currently, Kanu is being held at Sokoto Prison, following his conviction and sentencing. His continued incarceration has remained a source of tension, with periodic calls from supporters and some political actors for his release or a political solution to the broader agitation for self-determination.
As the Court of Appeal prepares to hear the matter, attention will once again turn to the judiciary and its handling of one of the most controversial terrorism prosecutions in recent Nigerian history. The outcome of the appeal could have far-reaching implications, not only for Kanu personally, but also for the legal boundaries of free expression, separatist advocacy, and the use of terrorism laws in Nigeria.
For now, the appeal signals that the IPOB leader is far from conceding defeat and is determined to exhaust all legal avenues in his bid to overturn his conviction and regain his freedom.
