The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has formally appealed his conviction and life sentence.
His lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, disclosed this in a post on his verified X (formerly Twitter) handle on Wednesday.
According to Ejimakor, the appeal was filed on February 4, 2026, at the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
“The mother of all appeals has been filed, as Mazi Nnamdi Kanu personally appeals against his conviction and sentence today, the 4th of February 2026,” he wrote.
Recalls that Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court had, on November 20, 2025, sentenced the pro-Biafra agitator to life imprisonment after finding him guilty of terrorism-related offences.
In the Notice of Appeal, Kanu is challenging both his conviction and the life sentences imposed on him.
The appeal partly reads:
“On 4 February 2026, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu filed a Notice of Appeal at the Court of Appeal, Abuja, challenging his terrorism conviction and life sentences imposed by the Federal High Court on 20 November 2025.”
Kanu was convicted on seven counts bordering on terrorism, including alleged inflammatory broadcasts, incitement, directives linked to bomb-making, and the unlawful importation of a radio transmitter. Most of the counts attracted life imprisonment, with the court ordering all sentences to run concurrently.
However, the defence team said the appeal goes beyond a routine post-conviction process.
Although the Notice of Appeal contains 22 grounds, Ejimakor explained that the issues raised were distilled from a far more extensive review.
According to him, the defence initially identified over 1,000 procedural and legal defects, which were refined into 101 core infractions and eventually streamlined to 22 grounds in compliance with appellate rules.
The legal team said the approach was designed to present the Court of Appeal with a clear picture of what it described as cumulative systemic failure, rather than overwhelm the court with excessive filings.
The appeal also faulted the trial court for allegedly failing to address the legal implications of the 2017 military invasion of Kanu’s home during Operation Python Dance II, which reportedly led to deaths and widespread destruction.
The defence argued that Kanu’s subsequent absence from Nigeria was a forced response to state violence, but was wrongly portrayed during trial as voluntary “flight,” with adverse inferences drawn against him.
They further alleged multiple violations of Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, including the court’s failure to hear a pending preliminary objection, leaving a bail application undecided, and delivering judgment without allowing the defence to file a final written address.
