The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has formally appealed his terrorism conviction and life imprisonment sentence. His lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, disclosed this on Wednesday via his verified X handle, describing the move as a major legal challenge to the judgment of the Federal High Court. According to Ejimakor, Kanu personally filed the Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, on February 4, 2026, contesting the conviction and life sentences imposed by Justice James Omotosho on November 20, 2025. Kanu was convicted on seven terrorism-related charges, including allegations bordering on inciting broadcasts, directives linked to bomb-making, and the unlawful importation of a radio transmitter. Most of the counts attracted life imprisonment, with all sentences ordered to run concurrently. The defence stressed that the appeal goes beyond a routine post-conviction process. Although the Notice of Appeal contains 22 grounds, the legal team explained that these were carefully distilled from a much broader review that initially identified over 1,000 alleged procedural and legal flaws, later narrowed to 101 key infractions before being streamlined to comply with appellate rules. According to the defence, the strategy is to present the appellate court with a focused case that highlights what it describes as systemic failures in the trial process, rather than overwhelming the court with numerous issues. Among the key arguments raised is the trial court’s alleged failure to consider the legal implications of the 2017 military operation at Kanu’s residence, known as Operation Python Dance II, which reportedly resulted in deaths and widespread destruction. The defence argues that Kanu’s subsequent absence from Nigeria was forced by state violence, but was wrongly interpreted as voluntary flight during the trial. The appeal also alleges multiple violations of Section 36 of the Constitution, including the court’s failure to rule on a pending preliminary objection, leaving a bail application unresolved, and delivering judgment without allowing the defence to file a final written address.
