Headlines
Inciting Broadcast, Sit-at-Home, Others: Court Finds Nnamdi Kanu Guilty
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday has convicted the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, for issuing “sit-at-home” orders that led to the closure of banks, schools, and economic activities across the Southeast, particularly on Mondays.
The court described the actions as “terrorist acts against Nigeria.”
Justice James Omotosho delivered the conviction while reading his judgment in Kanu’s ongoing trial on alleged treasonable felony and terrorism charges brought by the Federal Government.
Recall that Justice Omotosho had earlier dismissed Kanu’s no-case submission, ruling that prima facie (at first sight) evidence had been sufficiently provided by the Department of State Services (DSS), requiring “some explanation” from Kanu. However, Kanu refused to enter a defence and was eventually foreclosed after multiple adjournments.
The Federal Government accused Kanu of issuing threats via broadcasts across Nigeria, warning that anyone who flouted the sit-at-home order in the Southeast would face consequences, allegedly inciting insurrection against the state.
The prosecution further claimed that, due to Kanu’s directives, banks, schools, markets, shopping malls, and petrol stations in the Southeast remained mostly closed on Mondays. Kanu denied the allegations in the original 2015 case, paving the way for trial; however, the case commenced afresh before Justice Omotosho in 2025.
What the Court Said
Justice Omotosho held that since Kanu’s defence had been foreclosed, the court would rely solely on the prosecution’s evidence and several affidavits placed before the court.
The judge stated that anyone involved in acts of terrorism is liable, upon conviction, to life imprisonment.
He described terrorism as actions or threats of violence that create fear, especially when innocent people are targeted.
He noted that, in several broadcasts—including an interview with Sahara TV—Kanu threatened harm against the Federal Government and Nigerians, including members of his “own people.”
The judge quoted Kanu describing Nigeria as a “zoo” and referring to the Southeast as “Biafra.” He added that Kanu was fully aware of his actions, which could be inferred from his conduct.
For Count 2, relating to the sit-at-home directive that shut down banks and schools, the judge cited prosecution evidence showing that Kanu, on May 30, 2021, threatened to shut down the Southeast, including economic and educational sectors.
The court held that every Nigerian citizen is entitled to personal liberty and freedom of movement, noting that the people of the Southeast cannot be compelled to sit at home by Kanu, who holds no constitutional authority.
“The defendant, Kanu, is not the President of Nigeria and therefore lacked the power to impose sit-at-home orders on any part of the country. The act is not only unconstitutional but amounts to terrorist activity,” the judge ruled, convicting him on Count 2.
On Count 3, which relates to Kanu’s leadership of IPOB, the judge convicted him for leading a proscribed organization.
On Counts 4 and 5, which involve incitement of people to commit acts of terrorism against the state—offences liable to a death sentence—the judge agreed with the prosecution that Kanu encouraged attacks on security agents, institutions, and government property, citing instances where he allegedly called for the burning of Murtala Muhammed Airport and other facilities.
The court condemned Kanu’s behaviour, describing it as “evil”, highlighting that such an individual does not deserve to live within society.
He also convicted Kanu for inciting anarchy against Nigeria.
Source: Nairametrics
The court also found Kanu guilty and convicted him on Count 6.
The Supreme Court has vacated the order of the Court of Appeal which barred the recognition of David Mark as the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, ADC.
The apex court on Thursday held that the preservative order by the Court of Appeal was in bad faith, unnecessary, unwarranted and improper.
In a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba held that the Court of Appeal ought not to have made such order because it was not sought by any of the parties in the matter.
The Court of Appeal had issued an order of status quo antem bellum upon which the ADC exco under David Mark was de-recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
With the vacation of the order, David Mark and the other national officers are to be recognized as ADC leaders by the electoral body.
The convention produced the Tanimu Turaki-led factional national executives of the party.
Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.
Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.
The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.
However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.
The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.
It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.
“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”
At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”
During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.
It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.
In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.
On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.
Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.
The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.
The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).
It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.
The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.
After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.
