By Nnochiri Ikechukwu
Nnamdi Kanu, the convicted Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, has filed a 22-ground appeal to overturn the Federal High Court in Abuja’s November 20, 2025, ruling that had given him a life sentence.
In the notice of appeal he personally signed, Kanu, who was found guilty on a seven-count terrorism charge that the Federal Government had preferred against him, argued that trial judge James Omotosho had made a legal error and caused a serious injustice against him.
Kanu argued in his first ground of appeal that the trial judge committed a legal error “by failing to resolve the procedural and competence consequences of the foundational disruption of the original trial process in September 2017 (Operation Python Dance II), thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.”
Kanu explained the error to the appellate court, stating that Nigerian State agents attacked his home in Afara-Ukwu in September 2017 as part of “Operation Python Dance II.”
“The aforementioned operation caused destruction and fatalities, and it also caused the earlier proceedings to be disrupted.”
After that, the appellant’s case developed in a way that necessitated the trial court first ascertain the legal impact of that fundamental disturbance on competency.
Without first addressing the fundamental competency issues raised by the aforementioned State action, the trial court moved forward with hearing evidence and rendering a decision.
“Despite the unresolved foundational competence issues, the judgment of conviction was delivered on November 20, 2025,” he continued.
Justice Omotosho committed a similar legal error, according to Kanu, “by failing, refusing or neglecting to hear and determine the Appellant’s pending Preliminary Objection challenging the competence of the proceedings before proceeding to trial and judgment.”
He argued that his objection, which was backed up by affidavit evidence, questioned the proceedings’ competence on threshold jurisdictional grounds.
“The objection was not heard or decided by the Learned Trial Judge. While the objection was still pending and unresolved, the court continued with the evidence and rendered a decision on November 20, 2025.
Kanu contended in one of the grounds that the trial judge “affected the fairness of the process” by convicting him before deciding on his pending bail plea.
In addition, the disgraced IPOB leader argued that the trial judge had committed a legal error by imposing excessive and/or unlawful sentences without taking the appellant’s allocutus into consideration and by failing to take into account pertinent mitigating elements.
He claims that “the appellant was not given the chance to address the court in mitigation (allocutus) upon conviction.”
Allocutus was not used when imposing the sentence. The court failed to take into account pertinent sentencing or mitigation elements.
In addition to asking the Court of Appeal to overturn his conviction on every count in the charge designated FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015, Kanu also requested an order rescinding the penalties and sentences the High Court had imposed on him.
“An Order of the Honourable Court of Appeal discharging and acquitting the Appellant in respect of all the counts in charge No.FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015” was another request he made.
Kanu informed the appellant court that he “may be conducting the appeal in person” and that he would like to attend the appeal hearing.
“I would like to present my case and argument in writing, as well as orally during the appeal hearing,” he continued.
