The Federal High Court in Abuja has convicted Biafra agitator Nnamdi Kanu for acts of terrorism and his membership of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Judge James Omotosho, who earlier ejected the IPOB leader from the courtroom over his unruly behaviour during Thursday’s proceedings, ruled that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Grow your business with us
The judge, who has so far convicted Mr Kanu on six of the seven counts filed by the federal government, ruled that the prosecution proved all the ingredients of the offences of terrorism.
He has convicted him of carrying out terrorist acts, issuing illegal stay-at-home orders in the South-east region for years, incitement, and teaching people to make bombs to be used on government facilities, and membership of a terrorist organisation.
He said the prosecution proved that Mr Kanu is a person, and that he made several inciting broadcasts threatening the federal government and citizens with death and destruction to achieve his goal of independence of Biafra from Nigeria.
“The defendant knew what he was doing while making these violent threats. The defendant was also bent on achieving his objective with violence and did not mind if his own people died,” the judge said.
He cited a video clip capturing Mr Kanu calling for violence in Nigeria to actualise Biafra’s independence during the Third World Igbo Congress in Los Angeles, the United States.
“Most of the participants were quite alarmed that they asked him if he had considered the option of peaceful dialogue to which the defendant was adamant,” Mr Omotosho said.
He also cited Mr Kanu’s call-in broadcasts during the EndSARS protests in October 2020, where he incited callers and listeners to burn down government facilities, including the Murtburn down police stations, and kill security officers and their families.
He added that the intention and knowledge of the defendant was expressed by him and could be deduced by his conduct and other circumstances.
“His words were not mere words,” as many police officers and security officers were killed and several police stations were burnt down in Lagos as a result of his incitement.
The judge said even though not all the destruction could be blamed on Mr Kanu, “there is no doubt the incitement contributed to killing of security operatives and destruction of police stations”.
“The number of police officers that were killed was 128; military officers were 37, other security officers were 10. Police stations destroyed were 164, INEC offices destroyed were nine in number. This shows the extent of damage caused by the defendants’ inciting statement,” he said.
The judge also said, “His intention was clear. The defendant had an evil intention to wreak havoc on the people and government of Nigeria.”
“He turned himself into a tyrant who can kill at will. The defendant cannot be allowed to remain in a sane human society,” the judge said.
He also ruled that Mr Kanu can be safely described as “an international terrorist” with his directive to people to foreign embassies in Nigeria and kill the British High Commissioner.
Mr Omotosho quoted excerpts from several of Mr Kanu’s broadcasts, including the one in which he issued on Mondays in the South-east on 30 May 2021.
He ruled that Mr Kanu’s stay-at-home order was unconstitutional and amounted to nothing less than a terrorist act.
He cited various broadcasts where Mr Kanu incited the public and the Eastern Security Network to take arms against the federal government and kill security personnel.
He also quoted excerpts of a broadcast in which Mr Kanu professed to be a member of IPOB. “The evidence before this court is that IPOB is a proscribed group,” the judge said, citing the judgement of the Federal High Court in Abuja delivered on 18 September 2017 proscribing IPOB and designating it as a terrorist organisation.
He said, Mr Kanu by his broadcasts professing to be a member of IPOB after the proscription of the organisation, is guilty of being a member of terrorist group.
The judge, who emphasised Mr Kanu’s failure to offer any defence despite several opportunities given him to do so, said the evidence of the prosecution against him was uncontroverted.
The judge has yet to pronounce the sentence as he proceeds with reading the rest of the judgement.