Aloy Ejimakor, former Special Counsel to Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu, says evidence presented in court did not establish a connection between Kanu’s broadcasts and the violent attacks recorded in the South-East.
Ejimakor stated this on Monday during an interview on Channels Television’s Morning Brief, where he criticised the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, which convicted Kanu of terrorism-related offences.
Describing the ruling as “very unfortunate and highly regrettable,” Ejimakor said the prosecution failed to provide clear proof linking Kanu’s statements to the killings and destruction attributed to armed groups in the region. He acknowledged the loss of lives, including security personnel, but maintained that criminal liability must be based on direct evidence.
“The evidence laid before the court failed to make a clear connection between Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s broadcast and the acts of violence that occurred in the South-East,” he said, adding that indirect assumptions cannot substitute for factual proof.
Ejimakor insisted that he disagreed with the conviction and sentence, noting that while the judge may have found the evidence sufficient, he personally did not.
Kanu has been in the custody of the Department of State Services since June 2021 after being returned to Nigeria under controversial circumstances. He faced charges of terrorism, incitement and operating an unlawful organisation. The Federal Government has repeatedly accused his broadcasts of encouraging attacks on security formations and enforcing sit-at-home orders—claims IPOB denies.
Justice Omotosho last Thursday convicted Kanu on seven terrorism counts and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He was subsequently transferred from Abuja to a correctional facility in Sokoto.
Ejimakor, who now serves as a legal consultant to the IPOB leader, said the case highlights broader concerns about the standard required to link political speech to violent actions, as well as issues surrounding due process and civil liberties.
