Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, has provided detailed reasoning behind his decision to sentence Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), to life imprisonment rather than handing down the death penalty, following Kanu’s conviction on multiple terrorism-related charges. The ruling was delivered on Thursday, November 20, 2025, marking a significant moment in the high-profile case that has attracted national and international attention.
Decision Against the Death Penalty
During the court proceedings, the prosecution, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Adegboyega Awomolo, strongly recommended the death penalty, arguing that the severity of the offenses warranted the ultimate punishment under Nigerian law. The prosecution emphasized the gravity of terrorism-related acts, including threats to national security, and argued that a life sentence would be insufficient to serve as a deterrent.
However, Justice Omotosho explained that while the law permits capital punishment for terrorism offenses, he opted for a different course, guided by principles of mercy and evolving global standards. He noted that many countries are moving away from the death penalty, reflecting a broader international shift toward human rights and the value of life. The judge also emphasized that Nigerian law allows judicial discretion, which permitted him to consider factors beyond the strict statutory framework when determining the appropriate sentence.
Religious and Moral Considerations
In delivering his judgment, Justice Omotosho cited religious teachings, particularly from the book of Matthew in the Holy Bible. He stated that Jesus Christ emphasized the importance of mercy and compassion, principles which influenced the court’s decision. “Jesus Christ taught His followers to show mercy,” the judge remarked, highlighting that justice does not always require the harshest punishment, especially when broader moral and humanitarian considerations are involved.
The judge further stressed that while Kanu’s actions were criminal and deserving of punishment, the life sentence represents a balance between holding him accountable and upholding ethical and humanitarian values. Justice Omotosho described the approach as aligning with the global trend toward limiting or abolishing capital punishment and promoting restorative justice wherever possible.
Protective Custody and Security Arrangements
Addressing Kanu’s detention, Justice Omotosho clarified that he would not be placed at Kuje Correctional Centre, citing concerns that the facility would not meet the specific requirements for his safety and the seriousness of his sentence. Instead, the court ordered that Kanu be placed in protective custody at a secure location approved by the authorities, ensuring both the enforcement of the sentence and the protection of the convict from potential harm.
Justice Omotosho underlined that this arrangement must balance the severity of the punishment with the need for security, noting that the court retains oversight to guarantee that the detention is managed responsibly and humanely. This provision aims to prevent any threats to Kanu’s life while maintaining the integrity of the legal system.
Restrictions on Electronic Devices
As part of the sentencing, the court imposed strict limitations on Kanu’s access to electronic devices. The judgment specifies that he is barred from using any gadgets, including phones and computers, unless under direct supervision by the Office of the National Security Adviser. This measure is intended to prevent Kanu from using technology to continue illegal broadcasts or incite actions that could threaten national security.
Seizure of IPOB Broadcasting Equipment
In addition to the custodial arrangements, Justice Omotosho directed that the Federal Government take possession of all equipment associated with IPOB broadcasts. The court ordered the seizure of transmitters and other devices used to disseminate IPOB’s messages, which were linked to criminal activities. Any additional equipment connected to the case will also be forfeited if no appeal is filed, reinforcing the legal consequences of Kanu’s actions and aiming to prevent further violations of the law.
The judge concluded by reiterating that the life imprisonment sentence, protective custody, device restrictions, and equipment seizures collectively reflect a measured response to terrorism, balancing accountability, security, and humanitarian considerations. The judgment sends a strong signal about Nigeria’s stance on terrorism while underscoring the role of mercy, law, and ethics in the judicial system.