On November 20, 2025, Justice James Kolawole Omotosho of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja sentenced Nnamdi Kanu, the convener and leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) proscribed by the Nigerian Government on 20th September 2017 as a terrorist group, and founder of the notorious Eastern Security Network (ESN) (launched on December 12, 2020).
He was convicted on all charges and sentenced to life imprisonment with other tenured sentences running concurrently.
To some people, the judge was too lenient and should have delivered the full wrath of the law (death sentence) but to others it was a miscarriage of justice and further validation of the marginalization the IPOB leader dedicated himself to.
Before the delivery of the judgment, there was a spike in reported incidents of insecurity across the country.
Without any deliberate attempt at stage-setting and with significance unbeknownst to many, his conviction and sentencing became another important inflection point in the country’s battle to eliminate organized insecurity and protect national identity and sovereignty
Post conviction and sentencing, some interesting questions and conspiracy theories have been floating around the ether. All of them presented moral superiority and deep convictions of their respective opinions and positions.
Let us review.
Question: Was Nnamdi Kanu guilty of the offenses he was accused of?
Answer: Yes. He was accused of organizing and inciting violence against the people and nation of Nigeria. He was accused of inciting the killing of members of law enforcement. He called for violence against the state and its legal authorities. He broadcast secessionist ideas via an illegal radio station. The damning truth is that there is too much publicly available evidence that irrefutably affirms his guilt and justifies his sentencing.
The harsh truth is that his conviction and sentencing are some of the best antidotes to remedy the insecurity in the country across all regions and states.
As I mentioned earlier, the country experienced a recent rise in insecurity incidents. The overwhelming majority called and are calling, for the administration of justice. How would it seem, having caught one of the leaders of one of the groups driving insecurity in the country, he/she is released on sympathetic or political grounds because ‘his people’ think he was ‘just slightly misunderstood and meant no harm’? Does this mean our calls for ‘justice’ are only for when the ‘justice’ favors our bias? What of those who lost lives, loved ones, and property and suffered psychological trauma because of the acts of these terrorists?
This brings up other questions to each of which I will provide considered opinions.
Do we want to punish insecurity, or do we want to reward and deify it?
In Nigeria, inciting someone to commit a capital offense is treated as a felony and can result in the same punishment as if the person had committed the act themselves. This is because the law considers the inciter as an accomplice, charged with abetting or counseling the commission of the crime, which is an inchoate offense with its own set of consequences.
The Criminal Code specifies that a person who incites others to commit acts of mutiny or treason is guilty of a felony and can be imprisoned for life.
The Criminal Code also states that anyone who counsels or procures another person to commit an offense is guilty of the same kind of offense and is liable to the same punishment as if they had committed it themselves.
Thus, Nnamdi Kanu is guilty. But what about the likes of Gumi and Igboho? Why have they not been prosecuted and sentenced?
First off, it is immaterial if other alleged offenders have not been caught or prosecuted. No reasonable human being would free a thief he was able to apprehend because he could not catch other members of the gang.
But more to the point, neither Gumi nor Igboho crossed the Rubicon that Nnamdi Kanu dared and even recklessly abused. Has Gumi or Igboho ever called for the killing of innocent people to pacify the death of an associate? Or ordered their supporters to kill law enforcement officers and destroy public properties? Or declared the sovereignty of another country in Nigeria?
These offenses are clear acts of treason. And it wasn’t just that he committed these acts. It was exacerbated by his sheer arrogance, making a mockery of the entire country.
The irony is that those who think justice was not properly served are actually looking for justification for the same marginalization they claim to be against. If you don’t want to be marginalized from national issues, why desire to be marginalized from justice?
If we are so concerned about insecurity, the conviction and sentencing of anyone involved should be considered a collective win!
Would any of us exonerate a man who, due to some disagreements between both of you, leverages his influence by inciting boys in the area to invade your house, kill and maim your loved ones, and raze your property, just because he says his was not the murdering hands?
Question: If he is guilty, why didn’t the judge deliver the death sentence? Could he claim a wrong conviction?
Answer: No. The law is very clear. It contains provisions for both and leaves the application to the judge’s discretion.
The harsh truth is that his death now would give him a massive win. It risks the chance of making him a martyr and further aggravating the insecurity situation in the country. Thus, the life sentencing also demystifies him and sends a chilling message to others. In fact, many of these criminals know that Nnamdi Kanu was both lucky and unlucky. He is lucky because he still gets to share this planet with others, although on less auspicious terms. He is unlucky because his arrest, conviction, and sentencing derobes him assumed invincibility and affirms the supremacy of the state.
Question: Would a political solution granting some form of amnesty not be a better rallying call for national unity?
Answer: No. A political solution will only serve to ridicule the justice system. Anything aside from a conviction and sentencing would literally cede authority and justification to criminals once they can hide under the guise of social activism.
Leave a Comment