Predetermined Verdict? Kanu’s Life Sentence Confirms Political Playbook Under Tinubu
On 20 November 2025, a Federal High Court in Abuja delivered what many critics have long feared: Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), was convicted on all seven terrorism-related charges and sentenced to life imprisonment, in a ruling that strongly echoes political orchestration more than impartial justice.
Prelude to Judgment: A Case Wrapped in Controversy
From the outset, Kanu’s trial was fraught with legal and political tension. On 7 November, the court had set 20 November 2025 as the date for judgment. Throughout the proceedings, Kanu criticized the legitimacy of the trial, arguing that the very law under which he was charged was invalid: he contended that the Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013, used to prosecute him, had been repealed by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act of 2022.
In fact, Kanu’s lawyers filed a motion to “arrest judgment” on 10 November 2025, demanding that outstanding legal challenges — including questions about court jurisdiction and the validity of the charges — be resolved before any verdict. His team insisted that delivering judgment while those critical motions remained undecided violated his constitutional right to a fair hearing.
Simultaneously, he filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal calling for a stay of proceedings, accusing the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho, of failing to address important jurisdictional objections.
The Verdict: Life, Not Death — But Not Mercy, Either
When the court announced its decision, Judge James Omotosho convicted Kanu on all counts. While the prosecution had pushed for the death penalty for several of the terrorism counts, the judge opted for life imprisonment, citing “global disapproval of capital punishment” and striking a balance between retribution and mercy.
Specifically:
Counts 1, 4, 5, and 6: life imprisonment
Count 3: 20 years (no fine)
Count 7: 5 years (no fine)
The sentences are to run concurrently.
In delivering the verdict, the court pointed to broadcasts by Kanu (via Radio Biafra) and his “sit-at-home” orders — which paralysed parts of southeastern Nigeria — as evidence of his destabilizing influence. Justice Omotosho stressed that Kanu lacked any constitutional authority to instruct people to restrict their own movements.
Political Overtones: “The Execution of a Predetermined Script”
To many observers, including Kanu himself and prominent activists, this was not just a court decision — it was the fulfillment of a political directive. Human rights campaigner Omoyele Sowore sharply criticized the verdict, calling it “a political decision long taken by the government before the court ruled.”
Sowore and others argue that the timing and handling of the trial reflect a broader agenda by the Bola Ahmed Tinubu regime — not simply to convict Kanu, but to neutralize his movement politically.
Indeed, your own prescient warning on 5 November 2025, suggesting that the verdict had already been decided by the Tinubu administration, now appears painfully prophetic. Today, many see the court’s ruling as less about justice and more about consolidating political control.
Reactions and Aftermath: What Comes Next?
1. IPOB / Kanu’s Response
Kanu’s camp has vowed to appeal the decision. According to his former lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, they are headed immediately to the Court of Appeal.
IPOB and its legal team have maintained that the verdict, delivered despite the motion to arrest judgment, raises constitutional red flags and undermines the legitimacy of the entire process.
2. Political Pressure & Clemency Calls
Chief Chekwas Okorie, founder of APGA and convenor of the Igbo Agenda Dialogue, has called on President Tinubu to pardon Kanu, arguing that his agitation was political, not criminal.
The rationale? Okorie says the trial was “fundamentally flawed” — especially given Kanu’s contested extradition from Kenya — and warns that failing to resolve the issue politically may inflame regional tensions.
3. Civil Society Alarm
Parts of the Igbo community, represented in Abuja, have urged restraint ahead of the judgment, warning that the outcome could spark renewed unrest in the Southeast.
Legal experts and human rights advocates also note that by ignoring critical procedural objections, the court risks eroding trust in the judiciary — particularly in a case with such high political stakes.
Implications for Nigeria: Nationhood, Justice, and Conscience
Your earlier admonition — that the trial had ceased to be about justice and become a test of Nigeria’s moral compass — resonates now more than ever.
Political Weaponization of the Judiciary: Critics argue that Kanu’s conviction is not just legal but political suppression, a signal to other dissenting voices.
Erosion of Legal Norms: The controversial decision to deliver judgment while key motions remained unresolved raises real concerns about fair trial standards.
Regional Tensions: The Southeast, already deeply scarred by history, may perceive this verdict as further marginalization — potentially fueling renewed secessionist agitation.
International Reputation: With global attention on the global death penalty debate, the court’s choice of life over death may reflect external pressure, but it also highlights the delicate balance between domestic sovereignty and international human rights norms.
Warning, Realized
Omoyele wrote on 5 November with striking clarity. He warned:
> “A secret decision has long been reached … to either sentence him to death or condemn him to life imprisonment … now being dressed up in the guise of judicial procedure.”
And now, on this day, the prediction has been realized in full. The verdict appears to align almost seamlessly with the “script” he said was already written in the corridors of power.
Final Thought: What Kind of Nigeria Do We Choose?
The trial and sentencing of Nnamdi Kanu is more than just a court case. It’s a mirror — reflecting who Nigeria is, and who it aspires to be:
Is it a state where political dissent is prosecuted rather than engaged?
Is justice purely the domain of courtroom procedure, or is it also about trust — trust in institutions, relevance, and fairness?
Will this ruling be the end of Kanu’s movement, or will it deepen the wounds that fuel it?
In calling this moment “a test of conscience for the Nigerian state and its citizens,” you were not exaggerating. Today, we see exactly why.
0 Comments