Biafra activist Nnamdi Kanu has been sentenced to life imprisonment for terrorism.
Newsone Nigeria reports that the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, the nation’s capital, has sentenced the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, to life imprisonment after being convicted on all seven counts of terrorism filed against him.
The presiding judge, Justice James Omotosho, delivering judgment in Kanu’s trial, described him as a terrorist whose actions have led to bloodshed and destabilization in the South-East.
Justice Omotosho said Kanu, who portrayed himself as a defender of his people, has instead endangered lives and national security.
“The court finds that the defendant, Nnamdi Kanu, is an international terrorist and must be treated accordingly,” Justice Omotosho declared.
The judge emphasized that the prosecution presented credible and sufficient evidence to prove the case against Kanu. He also noted that Kanu failed to enter a defense, choosing instead to rest his case on the prosecution’s evidence.
Justice Omotosho is still delivering the remaining part of the judgment.
Addressing the press at the Federal High Court shortly after Justice James Omotosho delivered the judgment that sentenced Kanu to life imprisonment, his lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, who was at the court as a consultant, said they were heading to the upper court.
He argued that a man cannot be convicted for mere spoken words, questioning why that should be the case at the Federal High Court.
“What kind of precedent is being laid here? We are heading to the Court of Appeal,” he said.
“The Court of Appeal is the only court in this country, or the next court in this country that sits as a jury. We are going to approach justices there to check out what happened in court today.
“And we are pretty sure the justices will agree with us that today was the symbol of the travesty of justice that everybody has been suspecting.”
He said further: “If the Court of Appeal disagrees with us, we head to the Supreme Court. Nnamdi Kanu is not going to stand convicted. He’s going to get overturned.
“This is the only day I have witnessed a man being convicted for mere pronouncements, just for what he said from his mouth, not what he did with his own hands.
“The verdict is not consistent with the evidence laid before the court. The sentence is overbroad, cruel and unusual.
“How can you convict a man for making a mere broadcast from a location that was never named and he never tied that broadcast to any single incident of violence, or even someone slapping someone, not to talk of terrorism.”
