Detained IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has lodged a fresh appeal at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, seeking to overturn his terrorism conviction and multiple life sentences imposed by the Federal High Court on November 20, 2025.
The appeal, filed on February 4, 2026, challenges his conviction on seven terrorism-related counts involving alleged broadcasts, incitement, bomb-making directives and unlawful importation of a radio transmitter. The trial court had ordered that all life sentences run concurrently.
Defence Presents Streamlined 22-Ground Challenge
According to his legal team, the Notice of Appeal contains 22 grounds described as a concise but comprehensive legal challenge. The lawyers said the issues were narrowed from a broader review of alleged procedural and legal flaws identified during the trial process.
They noted that the appeal focuses on what they termed cumulative irregularities that may have affected the fairness and outcome of the case.
Key Arguments Before The Court
Controversy Over “Flight” Narrative:
The defence argues that the trial court failed to properly evaluate events surrounding the 2017 military operation at Kanu’s residence, stating that his departure from Nigeria was wrongly portrayed as voluntary flight rather than a reaction to security concerns.
Alleged Fair Hearing Violations:
Several grounds of appeal cite alleged breaches of constitutional fair hearing rights, including claims that certain applications and objections were not determined before judgment and that the defence was not allowed to submit a final written address.
Evidentiary Issues Raised:
The appeal questions the strength of the prosecution’s case, noting that no direct victims testified to harm or intimidation and that no physical evidence was produced to establish alleged bomb-making activities. The defence argues that the conviction fell short of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Reliance On Matters Outside Formal Charges:
Kanu’s lawyers also claim that aspects of the judgment referenced incidents not contained in the charge sheet, including alleged foreign diplomatic matters which they say were neither pleaded nor proven.
Statutory And Sentencing Disputes:
The appeal further challenges the legal basis of certain convictions, alleging reliance on a terrorism statute said to have been repealed before judgment. It also disputes the legality of sentencing on the radio transmitter charge, which the defence argues is statute-barred and exceeded the lawful maximum penalty.
What Happens Next
The Court of Appeal is expected to review the Record of Appeal before fixing hearing dates. The case is anticipated to draw widespread attention as it raises questions around due process, evidentiary standards and judicial accountability in high-profile terrorism prosecutions.
Prosecuting authorities had not issued an official response as of the time of filing this report.
Post a Comment