The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has formally appealed his conviction and life sentence handed down by the Federal High Court.
The development was confirmed on Wednesday by Kanu’s lead counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, in a post on his verified X (formerly Twitter) account. According to the lawyer, the appeal was personally filed by Kanu at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, on February 4, 2026.
“The mother of all appeals has been filed, as Mazi Nnamdi Kanu personally appeals against his conviction and sentence today,” Ejimakor wrote.
Kanu was sentenced to life imprisonment by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court on November 20, 2025, after being found guilty on seven counts of terrorism-related offences.
Court records show that the charges included allegations bordering on inciting broadcasts, terrorism-related directives, possession and use of an unlicensed radio transmitter, and other acts deemed prejudicial to national security. Most of the counts attracted life sentences, all of which were ordered to run concurrently.
In the Notice of Appeal filed before the appellate court, Kanu is challenging both the conviction and the sentence, arguing that the trial was fundamentally flawed.
Although the appeal lists 22 grounds, the defence team described it as a carefully streamlined legal challenge. Ejimakor explained that the grounds were distilled from what the defence initially identified as over 1,000 procedural and legal irregularities during the trial, later reduced to 101 core issues and finally compressed to comply with appellate rules.
According to the defence, the appeal seeks to present what it described as a cumulative failure of due process, rather than overwhelm the court with excessive filings.
Among the key issues raised is the trial court’s alleged failure to consider the legal implications of the 2017 military operation known as Operation Python Dance II, during which Kanu’s residence was raided, resulting in deaths and destruction.
The defence contends that Kanu’s subsequent absence from Nigeria was a direct consequence of the operation and state violence, rather than a voluntary act of evasion, as was allegedly portrayed during the trial.
The appeal also alleges violations of Kanu’s constitutional right to fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, including claims that a pending preliminary objection was not determined, a bail application was left unresolved, and judgment was delivered without allowing the defence to file a final written address.
The Court of Appeal is yet to fix a date for the hearing of the appeal.