South-east residents, IPOB react to Nnamdi Kanu’s life imprisonment

Mr Kanu, who was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for terrorism at the Federal High Court in Abuja, had been facing trial since 2015 when he was first arrested by Nigeria's authorities.

Residents of South-east have expressed outrage over the conviction and sentencing of the leader of the outlawed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment for terrorism.

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday convicted Mr Kanu on all seven counts preferred against him by the Nigerian government and subsequently sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The terrorism charges against Mr Kanu were related to his agitation for the secession of the South-east and some parts of the South-south from Nigeria to form an independent state of Biafra.

The trial judge, James Omotosho, also ordered that the IPOB leader be prevented from having access to mobile devices and broadcast equipment, except under the supervision of security operatives.

South-east residents fume

A resident of Enugu State, Emeka Mamah, faulted the judgement, explaining that the issue ought to have been resolved outside the courtroom, the way the case of Sunday Adeyemo was handled.

Popularly known as Sunday Igboho, Mr Adeyemo is a Yoruba Nation agitator who was arrested by Nigerian authorities over his agitation and later released without trial.

Mr Mamah told PREMIUM TIMES that what happened to Mr Kanu was simply a “political conviction”, not a conventional trial.

“I don’t know why Nnamdi Kanu’s case was handled differently. It was like the authorities had made up their minds to convict him,” he said, arguing that the IPOB leader was just an “agitator”.

He said that if his conviction stands, it could open doors for the emergence of similar agitators in the South-east due to the alleged marginalisation of the region.

“This is because, as long as there’s injustice, there must be an agitation. They (the Nigerian government) are not treating the South-east fairly. And you don’t expect people, especially the youth, to keep quiet,” he said.

For Chris Asor, a resident of Anambra State, the feeling that came with the judgement was that of disappointment and anger.

“That young man had been incarcerated for so long and the expectation was there should have been a consideration or waiver for him and the entire South-east,” he said.

Mr Asor, who is the chairperson of Civil Society Organisations in Anambra State, said Nigeria missed an opportunity to resolve the Biafran agitation and heal the wounds of the civil war.

“The mindset of most South-easterners, especially in Ndigbo, is that the civil war has not ended. It has not ended.

“If Nnamdi Kanu will still be held in captivity, and to the point of giving a life sentence, they (Nigerian authorities) are not really serious about healing that wound of civil war,” he stated.

Meshack Nwachukwu, a resident of Ebonyi State, said the conviction and sentencing of Mr Kanu were infuriating and disappointing.

“It was like a dream to me. Since I heard of it yesterday, I haven’t been myself. I was very angry,” he said of the conviction.

Mr Nwachukwu, who resides in Abakaliki, the Ebonyi State capital, told PREMIUM TIMES that tension went high after Mr Kanu was convicted on Thursday.

He argued that the judgement was faulty and wondered why the leaders in the South-east remained quiet over it.

The resident said the judgement could worsen insecurity in the South-east.

“With this ruling, nobody is safe again (in the South-east). This is the beginning of insecurity that we have been trying to stop,” he added.

In Imo State, Benjamin Ohadoma argued that the conviction of the IPOB leader was “very, very unfair.”

Mr Ohadoma believes that the ruling did not represent justice in the matter.

“We are angry. Honestly, when I heard of the conviction, I got angry.

“Even though I couldn’t do anything to change the situation. But I believe that the judgement shows that a common person cannot get justice in Nigeria’s courts,” he said, insisting that the judgement was predetermined.

IPOB kicks

IPOB, the outlawed pro-Biafra group, has faulted the conviction and sentencing of its leader, Mr Kanu, to life imprisonment.

In a statement on Friday, IPOB spokesperson Emma Powerful argued that Mr Kanu did not commit any crime known to any Nigerian law.

“For the avoidance of doubt, no gun, no grenade, no GPMG, no explosive, and no attack plan were 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 argued.

Mr Powerful claimed, without evidence, that the Nigerian government has only continued to criminalise self-determination, despite being a right guaranteed under local and international laws.

The spokesperson stressed that it was ironic that the Nigerian authorities were determined to prosecute Mr Kanu without doing the same to some of the country’s security personnel who invaded and attacked the IPOB leader’s family house in Afara-Ukwu, Abia State, in 2017.

“Not one government officer or soldier has been held accountable for these atrocities. Yet the same system now seeks to convict the victim,” he said.

Citing Section 36(12) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution as amended, Mr Powerful argued that the judge delivered the judgement without showing the law upon which the IPOB leader was convicted.

“We reaffirm our commitment to peaceful advocacy, international law, and the pursuit of a United Nations–supervised referendum.

“IPOB will continue to engage global institutions to ensure that this latest judicial absurdity attracts the condemnation it deserves,” he said.

Meanwhile, PREMIUM TIMES reports that Justice Omotosho, while ruling on Mr Kanu’s contention on the law upon which he was being tried, noted that the IPOB leader was being prosecuted for offences he committed between 2018 and 2021, while the new Terrorism Prevention Act 2022 only became operational in May 2022.

The judge also cited Section 98 (3) of the new law, which provides that any proceedings, prosecution, interest, judgements, charge or course of action pending before the new law may be enforced and continued.