Detained separatist figure Nnamdi Kanu has formally lodged an appeal challenging his terrorism conviction and multiple life sentences handed down by a Federal High Court in Abuja.
In a notice of appeal dated February 4, 2026, Kanu notified the court of his decision to contest both the verdict and the penalties imposed on him across seven counts linked to terrorism and related offences. He was convicted on November 20, 2025, and received five life sentences along with additional prison terms.
In the appeal filing, Kanu declared his intention to overturn the ruling, stating that he is dissatisfied with both the judgment and sentencing and is seeking appellate review.
The charges for which he was convicted include carrying out acts in preparation for terrorism, making broadcasts intended to intimidate the public, and belonging to and leading the proscribed group, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). He was also found guilty of unlawfully importing a radio transmitter without proper authorisation.
The trial judgment was delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja. Beyond the five life terms tied to terrorism counts, the court sentenced Kanu to 20 years in prison for leading a banned organisation and an additional five-year term, without the option of fine, for the transmitter offence.
In his grounds of appeal, Kanu argued that the trial court overlooked critical procedural issues that, in his view, undermined the legitimacy of the proceedings. He pointed to the disruption of his earlier trial process following the 2017 military operation at his Afara-Ukwu residence, describing it as a foundational issue that should have been resolved before judgment.
He further maintained that the court went ahead with the trial and ultimately delivered its verdict without first determining his preliminary objection challenging the competence of the case. According to the appeal, that objection was still pending at the time judgment was entered.
Kanu also argued that the ruling was delivered while an application relating to his bail remained undecided, which he claims affected the fairness of the process.
Another key argument in the appeal is that the conviction relied on a law he says had already been repealed before judgment was delivered — specifically the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013 — which he contends had been replaced by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
The appellate court is expected to fix a date for further proceedings on the appeal.
