On Friday, September 26, 2025, a Nigerian Federal High Court delivered a ruling that reverberated across the country and beyond, as it rejected a bid to free Nnamdi Kanu, the embattled leader of the banned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). The decision, handed down by Justice James Omotosho, concluded that prosecutors had presented enough evidence for Kanu to answer to serious terrorism and treason charges—a development that ensures the high-profile case remains firmly in the international spotlight.
Kanu, a British citizen and the face of the IPOB movement, has been a central figure in Nigeria’s political and legal landscape for over a decade. His journey through the legal system has been anything but straightforward. First arrested in Nigeria in 2015, Kanu skipped bail in 2017, only to be rearrested in Kenya in 2021 after what authorities described as a coordinated international operation. Since then, he has been held in the custody of Nigeria’s Department of State Services (DSS), awaiting trial on seven counts of terrorism and other related offenses, all of which he denies. If convicted, these charges could result in life sentences.
The court’s latest decision follows a year after Nigeria’s Supreme Court reinstated terrorism charges against Kanu, reaffirming the government’s determination to pursue the case. According to Reuters, Judge Omotosho dismissed Kanu’s “no-case submission,” stating, “It would be in the best interests of Kanu to be given the opportunity to clear some issues raised against him in the terrorism charges.” The judge further clarified, “This is not to say that the defendant is guilty as charged, but an opportunity to give him a fair hearing and allow him to exhaust his chances of explaining himself.” With this, the court ordered Kanu to open his defense when proceedings resume on October 8, 2025.
Kanu’s legal team had argued that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case, contending that the evidence was insufficient and that the charges themselves were politically motivated. They also raised concerns about the circumstances of his 2021 arrest, claiming he was unlawfully detained in Kenya before being transferred to Nigeria—an allegation that has formed the basis of ongoing legal challenges and appeals to human rights organizations. According to Al Jazeera, Kanu’s lawyers have taken their case to international platforms, asserting that his detention violates international law principles and that proper extradition procedures were not followed.
The prosecution, however, remains steadfast. Prosecutor Adegboyega Awomolo, representing the DSS, has maintained that Kanu’s arrest was lawful and that the evidence supports serious allegations about IPOB’s involvement in activities threatening Nigeria’s national security. The government’s position is clear: IPOB, under Kanu’s leadership, has posed a genuine threat to public safety and national unity. During the prosecution phase, security officials testified and evidence was presented that, according to authorities, links Kanu to terrorism-related activities. The court found these presentations compelling enough to warrant a full defense from the accused.
Underlying the legal proceedings is a deeply charged political context. IPOB, the group Kanu leads, seeks independence for Nigeria’s southeastern region, which is predominantly inhabited by the Igbo people. The campaign for Biafran independence has historical roots in the short-lived Republic of Biafra, which fought a bloody civil war against Nigeria from 1967 to 1970—a conflict that resulted in an estimated one million deaths, many from the southeast. Today, IPOB continues to draw significant support in the region, and Kanu’s followers view him as an advocate for Igbo rights and self-determination. Conversely, the Nigerian government considers IPOB a terrorist organization, blaming it for violence that has claimed many lives in the southeast—allegations IPOB denies.
Friday’s ruling has only intensified the debate. At the courthouse, Obi Aguocha, a member of Nigeria’s House of Representatives, voiced his support for Kanu, stating, “In this country, (there are) two sets of rules. One rule for the Igbos and one rule for every other Nigerian. This is a unique opportunity for Nigeria to be circumspect, look towards a political solution to this matter.” His comments reflect a broader sentiment among many in the southeast who feel marginalized and believe that Kanu’s prosecution is politically motivated.
Kanu’s detention conditions have also come under scrutiny. His lawyers have repeatedly raised concerns about his health, citing a report that recommends urgent transfer and possible treatment abroad. They have pushed for Kanu to be moved from DSS detention to the state-run National Hospital. The court responded by ordering Nigeria’s medical association to set up an eight-member panel to assess his health and advise on his request. However, the prosecution has opposed any transfer, citing security risks and insisting that DSS has complied with all court orders regarding Kanu’s welfare. The next hearing, set for October 8, will include a review of the medical panel’s findings.
The international community has not been silent. Human rights organizations and observers have closely monitored the case, expressing concerns about detention conditions and legal procedures. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, among others, has received complaints related to Kanu’s detention. Kanu’s family and supporters, for their part, have mounted vigorous campaigns for his release, arguing that his imprisonment constitutes political persecution rather than legitimate criminal prosecution. They point to various court orders and international legal principles in support of their position.
Adding to the complexity, the saga of separatist leadership has not been limited to Kanu alone. About four weeks prior to the court’s September 26 ruling, Simon Ekpa—another separatist leader who rose to prominence after Kanu’s detention—was sentenced in Finland to six years in prison for terrorism and tax fraud. This development has further fueled debate about the future of the Biafran movement and the Nigerian government’s approach to separatist activism.
Legal experts note that the Kanu case raises thorny questions about the intersection of self-determination movements, international arrest procedures, and anti-terrorism laws in Nigeria. The outcome could set precedents for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly as regional and international attention remains fixed on the proceedings. As the case moves into the defense phase, all eyes will be on what evidence and arguments Kanu’s legal team presents to counter the terrorism allegations, and whether broader political solutions might eventually come into play.
For now, the October 8 hearing stands as the next crucial juncture in a legal and political drama that has spanned years, stirred passions, and brought to the fore enduring questions about justice, national unity, and the rights of Nigeria’s diverse peoples.