The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has formally filed a notice of appeal against his conviction and multiple prison sentences, asserting that his terrorism trial in the Federal High Court, Abuja was marred by fundamental legal flaws and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
The appeal document, dated February 4, 2026, was lodged at the Court of Appeal, where Kanu’s legal team is seeking to overturn the verdict delivered on November 20, 2025, by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court. At that hearing, Kanu was found guilty on seven counts including terrorism-related offences and was handed five life sentences, a 20-year jail term for being leader of the proscribed IPOB, and an additional five-year sentence for importing a radio transmitter without a licence.
In the notice of appeal, Kanu, who remains detained at a correctional facility in Sokoto State, said he was appealing against his convictions and sentences on all counts, stressing that the trial court had committed serious legal missteps.
“I, Nnamdi Kanu, the Appellant, having been convicted and sentenced…do hereby give notice of appeal against my conviction,” the document states, challenging not only the verdict but also the process that led to it.
Among the chief grounds of appeal, Kanu argued that the Federal High Court erred by failing to resolve what he described as a “foundational disruption of the original trial process”, pointing in particular to a military operation at his residence in Afara-Ukwu in 2017 that he claims disrupted the proceedings.
He further contended that the trial court wrongly proceeded to trial and judgment without determining a preliminary objection he had filed challenging the competence of the proceedings. According to the appeal, judgment was delivered “while the objection remained pending and undetermined.”
Kanu also criticised the trial court for delivering judgment while his bail application was still pending, a factor he said “affected the fairness of the trial process.”
Another key legal challenge raised in the appeal is the application of the law under which he was convicted. In his grounds, Kanu maintained that the trial judge erred by convicting him under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013, despite its repeal by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, which was already in force before judgment was delivered.
Kanu also claimed that his trial violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), arguing that he was retried on “facts” that the Court of Appeal had previously nullified.
In the appeal, the IPOB leader requested the appellate court to grant several reliefs, chief among them being to quash his conviction and sentences and to “discharge and acquit the Appellant in respect of all the counts.”
He also informed the court of his intention to be physically present at the hearing of the appeal.
He said, “I want to be present at the hearing of the appeal because I may be conducting the appeal in person.”
Kanu’s appeal comes against the backdrop of a long-running legal and political saga that has stretched across more than a decade. His trial and conviction on terrorism charges, a case that began in 2015, have been highly controversial, drawing responses from civil rights advocates, political figures, and regional leaders who have challenged the legitimacy or fairness of various phases of his prosecution.
Following his November 2025 conviction, South-East leaders and pro-Biafran groups said they would pursue political and legal avenues in response, with some rejecting the life sentence as unjust and calling for dialogue.
Kanu’s detention and legal fight have also seen other related court actions, including an appellate court decision in late November 2025 that struck out his separate appeal on alleged fundamental rights violations against the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Attorney General of the Federation as academic after his conviction.
As the appeal now proceeds, the Court of Appeal will be tasked with addressing these complex legal questions, which could have significant implications for Nigeria’s criminal justice system and the broader discourse on national security and constitutional rights.
