After several years of standing trial on terrorism allegations, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPoB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was on Thursday convicted on three of the seven terrorism charges filed against him by the Federal Government.
He was also found guilty the other four counts brought gainst him.
Delivering judgement on Thursday, Justice James Omotosho of a Federal High Court in Abuja cited prosecution evidence, including video interviews in which Kanu made violent threats against Nigeria and its citizens, as the basis for the conviction.
Among the charges against Kanu is an “offence punishable under Section 41(c) of the Criminal Code Act, CAP. C77, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004”. According to the count, “on diverse dates in 2014 and 2015 in London, United Kingdom, (Kanu) did broadcast on Radio Biafra monitored in Enugu and other areas within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, preparations made by you and others now at large for states in the South-East and South-South zones and other communities in Kogi and Benue States to secede from the Federal Republic of Nigeria with a view to constituting same into the Republic of Biafra”.
Justice Omotosho said that evidence by the prosecution shows that the defendant ordered the sit-at-home order in the southeast. He added that the defendant failed to respond to the broadcast accusation and deliberately refused to enter his defence on it.
Kanu was also found guilty of describing the then President Muhammadu Buhari as a “paedophile, a terrorist, an idiot and an embodiment of evil, knowing same to be false and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 375 of the Criminal Code Act, Cap C. 77, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004”.
Justice Omotosho held that the threats of violence and killings, including the declaration of sit at home in the southeast states, in his many broadcasts, constituted acts of terrorism.
He had also been accused of importing into Nigeria, between March and April 2015, “a radio transmitter known as TRAM 50L concealed in a container of used household which you declared as used household items”.
Kanu was also found guilty for his membership of the a proscribed organisation, IPoB, which is said to be an ‘offence punishable under Section 16 Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, 2013’, while the defendant was also alleged to have committed “an act of terrorism in that you incite the other members (followers) of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPoB}, a proscribed organisation in Nigeria, to look for security personnel, their family members through a Radio Biafra on 102.1FM monitored through the IPoB Community Radio”.
At the commencement of the ruling, Justice Omotosho ordered that the proceedings continue without Kanu after describing his behaviour in court as unruly.
The decision followed the dismissal of three fresh motions filed by the IPoB leader, which the court deemed unmeritorious.
Kanu had interjected during the ruling, insisting that the court could not proceed as he had not filed his final written address.
He raised his voice in court, demanding: ‘Which law states that you can charge me on an unwritten law? Show me. Omotosho, where is the law? Any judgement declared in this court is a complete rubbish’.
He accused Justice Omotosho of bias and alleged that he lacked understanding of the law.
After a brief recess, the prosecution, led by Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) urged the court to continue the trial without Kanu, citing his disruptive conduct.
Justice Omotosho stated that, while a defendant has a constitutional right to be present during trial, repeated misconduct can allow proceedings to continue in their absence.
‘If a defendant misconducts himself or acts in an unruly manner during the course of his trial, his trial can be conducted in his absence’, he said.
He added that the court of justice is a temple of God.
He noted that Kanu’s unruly attitude was not new, as he had previously exhibited similar behaviour several times in the past.
The judge added that Kanu had indicated he would not present a defence, and that Thursday’s session was for judgement and possible sentencing.
Following the order, Kanu was removed from the courtroom, and the judge proceeded with delivering the ruling.
Kanu’s trial has been one of Nigeria’s most talked about legal battles in recent years. He was first arrested in 2015 and charged with treasonable felony and terrorism, but the case has since taken numerous turns.
In 2017, Kanu fled the country while out on bail, following a military operation at his residence during the time of “Operation Python Dance” In the South-East.
In June 2021, he was arrested in Kenya under contentious circumstances and brought back to Nigeria, a move his legal team and IPOB describe as an “extraordinary rendition”.
Upon his return, the charges were expanded to 15 counts, including terrorism and incitement to violence.
Kanu’s defence has repeatedly challenged the trial’s legitimacy. They argue that fundamental legal and procedural errors, including possible violations of international extradition law and jurisdictional rules, undermine the prosecution’s case.
Last month, Kanu’s lead counsel Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN) applied to withdraw his representation in the terrorism trial.
This followed the sudden sacking of his legal team on Thursday, the planned commencement of Kanu’s defence.
Agabi’s legal team had previously handled Kanu’s defence, along with other SANs. The senior lawyer explained that the reason for their withdrawal ‘is because the defendant has taken this case back from us and we respect that’.
He named the other SANs withdrawing as Onyechi Ikpeazu, Joseph Akubo, Paul Erokoro, Emeka Etiaba (all SANs), and one other.
Kanu also declined the offer by the court to secure a defence team for his case.
