Legal and rights advocates criticize Nnamdi Kanu’s life sentence as ‘premeditated’

Former Chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Idemili Branch, Anambra State, Barrister Maurice Efobi, has strongly criticized the life imprisonment sentence delivered to the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu. Efobi described the ruling by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, as a judgment he believes was “premeditated.”

Speaking in his chambers in Nkpor, near Onitsha, on Thursday, Efobi openly disagreed with the court’s decision. He noted that the sentiment within the Igbo community largely views the judgment as unfair, expressing concerns that the sentence would deepen long-standing feelings of marginalisation in the region.

Questioning the criminalization of self-determination

A core element of Efobi’s criticism focused on the nature of the charges against the IPOB leader. He questioned the judicial process, arguing that individuals suspected of what he termed “more serious violent crimes” were, in his view, being treated differently by the Nigerian justice system.

Efobi posited that Kanu’s advocacy, being one of self-determination, should have warranted a political approach rather than a purely criminal one. This perspective suggests that the conflict should be handled through dialogue and negotiation rather than punitive legal action.

Political solution and legal recourse options

Despite his strong critique of the sentence, Efobi outlined the available legal and executive options still open to the IPOB leader.

• Appeal Process: He confirmed that the sentence does not foreclose further legal steps, noting that Kanu retains the constitutional right to appeal the judgment, potentially up to the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

• Presidential Pardon: Efobi also suggested that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu holds the discretionary power to consider a presidential pardon, should his administration assess that such an act would best serve the national interest and facilitate reconciliation.

Human rights perspective on the ‘harsh’ sentence

In a separate, equally critical reaction, Dede Uzor A. Uzor, the Executive Director of Human Rights Defenders and Southeast Chairman of the Campaign for Democracy (CD), described the life sentence as “harsh.”

Uzor echoed the argument that Kanu was fundamentally pursuing a political cause he genuinely believed in. To emphasize his point, Uzor drew direct comparisons with other self-determination advocates from different regions who, he claimed, have since been granted clemency or regained their freedom, suggesting an inconsistency in how the Nigerian state addresses such issues.

Uzor strongly maintained that a political resolution remains the most viable and effective path forward, arguing that it would:

• Help reduce tensions in the Southeast region.

• Support wider security stabilisation efforts across Nigeria.

Both speakers concluded their remarks by emphasizing that failure to adopt a conciliatory approach following the life sentence is likely to deepen public concerns and foster distrust in the South-East, posing a potential risk to overall national cohesion.