Aloy Ejimakor, legal counsel to Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu, has confirmed that Kanu has been moved from the Department of State Services (DSS) detention in Abuja to a correctional facility in Sokoto following his life sentence.

“MAZI NNAMDI KANU has just been transferred from DSS Abuja to a correctional facility in Sokoto, far from his lawyers, family, and well-wishers,” Ejimakor stated on X.

Kanu was sentenced by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday after being found guilty on terrorism charges.

He received a life sentence for counts one, four, five, and six of the seven-count charge. Additionally, he was sentenced to 20 years and five years on counts three and seven, respectively.

In delivering judgment, Justice Omotosho ruled that the prosecution had proven all allegations against Kanu.

He noted that the IPOB leader provided no credible defense and “deliberately refused” to challenge the evidence presented.

Describing Kanu as “a person who cannot be allowed to remain in the company of sane minds” and labeling him an “international terrorist,” the judge explained that Kanu’s violent behavior during the trial made him unsuitable for Kuje Prison.

He emphasized that Kanu must be held in protective custody, and any use of electronic devices would require supervision by the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA).

Justice Omotosho further ordered the forfeiture of items retrieved from Kanu, including a smuggled transmitter, to the federal government.

Uchechi Okwu-Kanu, wife of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu, has strongly condemned her husband’s life imprisonment sentence, calling it illegal, biased, and a miscarriage of justice.

In a statement shared on social media, Uchechi accused Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja of ignoring constitutional safeguards, inventing evidence, and deliberately blocking Kanu’s right to a fair hearing.

Kanu was sentenced to life imprisonment for declaring a “sit-at-home” order in the South-East, which the court claimed was enforced through threats and violence.

The court also imposed concurrent sentences of 20 and five years on additional counts. Justice Omotosho, citing international concerns over capital punishment, opted against the death penalty.

Uchechi criticized the trial for multiple procedural breaches, stating that the charges were based on the now-repealed Terrorism Act of 2013 rather than the 2022 Act.

She said, “The judge knew the old law was dead but forced Kanu to plead under it. Charging someone under a law that no longer exists is illegal and void.”

She further accused the judge of inventing evidence, claiming allegations about Kanu plotting to bomb the British and US embassies during EndSARS were fabricated, with no witness ever testifying to such claims in court.

Uchechi also condemned the misuse of the “savings clause,” emphasizing that a repealed law cannot override the Constitution.

She highlighted the court’s failure to address international law requirements, noting there was no evidence, report, or witness from Kenya to substantiate claims of crimes allegedly committed there.

Concluding her statement, she said, “The judge didn’t follow the law, the Constitution, or due process.

“He used a dead law, invented evidence, blocked the defendant’s right to speak, and delivered a judgment that cannot stand.”

The verdict is illegal and will not survive appeal. It exposes the judge to disciplinary action.”

The Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) has described the life imprisonment sentence handed down to Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, as unacceptable, arguing it amounts to a life sentence for the entire Igbo race.

MASSOB leader, Uchenna Madu, said the ruling would not weaken the Biafra struggle. He criticized the judgment, asserting it was driven by personal vendetta rather than justice.

“President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has set Nigeria on irredeemable fire,” Madu said.

“The court’s ruling was not justice but vengeance from a man fueled by pathological hatred against Ndigbo, using Nnamdi Kanu as a target.”

He added, “Nnamdi Kanu was sentenced for words spoken from abroad, after being illegally abducted from Kenya, in defiance of a United Nations ruling demanding his release, and prosecuted under a law that no longer exists. Meanwhile, Mamman Nur, responsible for over 2,000 deaths as Boko Haram’s co-founder, received only five years.”

Madu said the sentence illustrates the government’s “lawless and totalitarian nature,” noting that Kanu’s real offense was exposing the threat of radical Islamic jihad in Nigeria and the government’s complicity.

MASSOB highlighted that Kanu’s seizure in Kenya in 2021 was not an extradition but an illegal rendition.

They cited the Kenyan High Court ruling by Justice Anthony Mrima in June 2025, which condemned the abduction as a violation of Kanu’s fundamental rights.

The group also referenced the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s opinions in 2022 and 2025, which deemed Kanu’s detention arbitrary and called for his immediate release.

MASSOB emphasized that the United States has never listed IPOB as a terrorist organization.

They further stressed that Kanu was tried under a repealed anti-terror law with no savings clause, concluding that this injustice is not only against Kanu but against the Igbo people as a whole.

The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has strongly criticised the ruling delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, against the detained IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, describing the judgment as a severe miscarriage of justice.

In a statement issued by its National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Onwubiko, the group condemned the verdict as a “travesty of justice” and an affront to the constitutional right to fair hearing.

HURIWA argued that the judgment failed to consider major legal and constitutional concerns raised by Kanu, especially his position that he was being tried under a repealed counter-terrorism law.

According to the group, “The judgment reflects judicial haste and injustice, and the court should have suspended its decision until the Court of Appeal resolved outstanding jurisdictional and procedural disputes.”

The organisation questioned why Justice Omotosho appeared determined to speed up the ruling despite pending appeals on the legality of the charges.

It emphasised that Kanu had repeatedly informed the court that the Terrorism Prevention Act 2013, under which he was being tried, was no longer in force.

HURIWA maintained that the charge sheet did not meet constitutional requirements.

“The charge sheet does not disclose any existing written law as required under Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which vitiates the entire trial,” the group said.

It accused the court of overlooking the prosecution’s reliance on what it described as a non-existent statute, insisting that no criminal trial can proceed on the basis of an inoperative law.

“Nothing in Nigerian jurisprudence allows a criminal trial to stand when the charge is based on an inoperative statute,” the rights group added.

The organisation also faulted the court’s interpretation of Kanu’s refusal to enter a defence.

It said Kanu’s position, that the court must first determine jurisdictional objections and the legality of the charges, is consistent with established principles of criminal procedure.

They said the judge’s claim that Kanu deliberately refused to defend himself was “disingenuous and misleading.”

HURIWA further highlighted concerns over alleged violations of Section 36 of the Constitution, which protects the right to fair hearing.

The group emphasised that jurisdictional issues and constitutional objections must always be resolved before trial.

It added that urgent matters such as extraordinary rendition, and pending appeals on the competence of the charges, were ignored.

“In extraordinary circumstances like this, judicial restraint is required, not speed,” the statement noted, stressing that the judgment is fundamentally flawed because of its failure to address crucial constitutional questions.

HURIWA called on the National Judicial Council (NJC) to review the conduct of the trial and urged the Court of Appeal to overturn the ruling, describing it as a decision that “offends both the law and the conscience of the nation.”

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has dismissed the ruling of the Federal High Court, Abuja, which sentenced its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment on seven terrorism-related charges.

In a statement issued on Friday, IPOB’s spokesperson, Emma Powerful, insisted that Kanu “committed no offence known to Nigerian law,” arguing that his actions were rooted in the pursuit of self-determination, a right he said is protected under multiple international treaties.

He accused the trial judge, Justice James Kolawole Omotosho, of failing to apply constitutional standards required for criminal convictions.

According to Powerful, the group intends to highlight what it describes as several legal and procedural irregularities in the judgment.

He stated:
“For the avoidance of doubt, no gun, no grenade, no GPMG, no explosive, and no attack plan was ever found on Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. None. No witness, civilian or military, ever testified before any court, at any stage, that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu committed any offence known to Nigerian or international law. This is an undeniable fact.”

He added that the Federal Government has continued to “criminalise self-determination,” citing Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

IPOB further argued that insecurity in the Southeast escalated while Kanu was in DSS custody, insisting that incidents recorded during that period could not be attributed to him.

The group referenced earlier military operations such as Operation Python Dance, alleging unresolved human rights abuses.

The separatist group also questioned the legal foundation of the conviction, alleging that the court relied on repealed or non-existent statutory provisions.

It pointed to Section 36(12) of the Constitution, which states that no person shall be convicted of a crime unless the offence and its penalty are clearly defined in a written law.

Powerful said:
“Justice Omotosho has demonstrated, sadly, that he either cannot interpret or refuses to interpret simple English contained in Section 36(12)… Our questions to Justice Omotosho are simple: What written law did you rely on to convict Mazi Nnamdi Kanu? Is that law still in force? If it has been repealed, can a repealed law qualify as a written law under Section 36(12)? Why did you ignore binding Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions stating that no Nigerian can be tried or convicted under a repealed statute?”

IPOB reiterated its plan to issue a comprehensive legal response to the ruling and said it would continue engaging international human rights organisations.

The group also renewed its call for a UN-supervised referendum on self-determination.

Justice Omotosho had ruled that Kanu’s Radio Biafra broadcasts and instructions concerning sit-at-home orders constituted acts of terrorism and accepted evidence allegedly linking him to attacks carried out by members of the Eastern Security Network (ESN).

“Who Openly Negotiate With Bandits Walk Freely” – Anger, Outrage Across Southeast Over Kanu’s Life Imprisonment Verdict

Strong waves of anger have erupted across parts of the Southeast following the life sentence handed down to IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court.

Many residents and commentators expressed outrage, insisting that the ruling deepened long-standing grievances about injustice, marginalisation, and selective application of the law.

A public affairs analyst, Mr. Muo, was particularly furious, describing the court’s decision as both “kangaroo” and “a gang-up.”

He rejected the basis of the conviction, saying:
“I do not know Kanu as a murderer or, in their words, a terrorist. You cannot charge one person with terrorism without bringing the so-called foot soldiers who carried out the acts to trial. Kanu is not responsible for killings in Nigeria.”

Muo accused the prosecution of failing to prove its case and said the ruling reflected systemic unfairness.

According to him, “Kanu merely spoke against injustice and marginalisation,” while others who openly promote violence “walk freely.”

He added that for many Igbo, Kanu represents resistance to structural inequality:

“There is no country Igbos don’t travel to for business, yet there is no seaport in the Southeast to ease their trade. Kanu is fighting against such injustices, but he is the one tagged a terrorist.”

In Awka, another resident, Vin, echoed the same outrage, saying the verdict was biased and influenced by a predetermined agenda.

He pointed to the earlier invasion of Kanu’s family home and the killings that followed — incidents he said were never treated with seriousness by authorities.