Nnamdi Kanu Sentenced to Life Imprisonment After Refusing to Enter Defence

By Jeremy Fregene

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday, November 20, 2025, sentenced the leader of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment after convicting him on seven terrorism-related charges filed by the Federal Government.

Justice James Omotosho delivered the judgment after months of stalled proceedings marked by repeated refusals by Kanu to enter his defence, despite multiple opportunities extended by the court. Legal analysts say this refusal ultimately left the court with little choice but to rely exclusively on the prosecution’s case.

Kanu was convicted on all seven counts, each of which carried the maximum penalty of death. However, Justice Omotosho imposed life imprisonment on counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6; 20 years on count 3; and five years on count 7. The sentences are to run concurrently.

The judge said he declined to impose the death penalty because “death sentencing is going into extinction worldwide” and because “the Holy books recommend mercy.” He ordered that Kanu be held in protective custody at a suitable facility outside the Kuje Correctional Centre, restricted from accessing electronic devices except under close monitoring by the Office of the National Security Adviser.

The court also ordered the forfeiture to the federal government of the transmitter and other broadcast equipment used for IPOB-related transmissions.

Analysts recall that when Justice Omotosho took over the case, he granted Kanu six days to enter his defence after the Supreme Court affirmed that a prima facie case existed on the surviving counts. Instead, Kanu consistently argued that his trial was unlawful, insisting he was being tried under “a non-existent law” and that the terrorism legislation under which he was charged had been repealed.

Kanu also claimed he had been unjustly detained since 2021 and filed several motions challenging the court’s jurisdiction, seeking to nullify earlier proceedings, and demanding immediate release.

Observers noted that Justice Omotosho repeatedly urged Kanu to seek legal counsel after he dismissed his lawyers. On November 4, and again on November 7, the judge appealed to him “in the name of Almighty God” to hire a lawyer knowledgeable in criminal law. The court described these appeals as efforts to ensure that the defendant was not denied a fair hearing.

The proceedings were further complicated by allegations from Kanu’s family that the Department of State Services (DSS) was obstructing his ability to prepare his defence. In response, the judge temporarily relocated the court registry to the courtroom to allow him to complete filings without delay.

Despite this, Kanu continued to insist that no valid law existed under which he could be tried. Justice Omotosho ruled that Kanu had “waived his right” to present a defence by refusing to utilise the opportunities repeatedly provided.

Legal experts had long predicted that Kanu’s refusal to enter defence made conviction a near fait accompli, as “a court cannot build a defence for a defendant who declines to present one.” Others noted that the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling affirming that he should stand trial left the trial court with a clear mandate to proceed.

“ Kanu can still appeal the judgment,” said a senior lawyer who is very familiar with the case, “but as it stands, only a political resolution can save him from spending the rest of his life in jail.”