Veteran journalist and former presidential aide, Reuben Abati, has provided an in-depth assessment indicating that the terrorism conviction secured against Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is definitively not the final chapter, countering popular speculation.
Appearing on Arise Television’s Morning Show on Friday, the 21st of November, 2025, Abati emphasized that the legal proceedings remain active.
He clarified that Kanu retains the crucial right to pursue appeals up to the Court of Appeal and potentially the Supreme Court. However, he cautioned that reversing the judgment at the appellate level could prove challenging, citing existing legal precedent.
Abati detailed the specific statute under which Kanu was prosecuted: the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act of 2013. This Act is notable because it mandates the death penalty for offences related to terrorism and treason.
The former presidential aide further noted the extensive nature of the court’s ruling, stating that the certified true copy of the judgment spans 144 pages. According to Abati, this document confirms Kanu’s conviction on all six counts laid out under the 2013 Act.
The complexity of the trial, he observed, was compounded by the fact that the case involved five different judges and Kanu’s controversial decision to dismiss his own legal team.
He explained that the court found the prosecution had successfully presented its case, and that Kanu was left with no option but to be convicted after being asked to enter his defence. This difficulty was exacerbated by his actions: he not only dismissed his lawyers but also adopted a “very confrontational manner” during the proceedings.
Abati specifically highlighted the reliance on the existing law: “Nnamdi Kanu was charged under the old law, the 2013 law, Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act, and under that law, the punishment for terrorism, for treason, is the death penalty. And that is why a woman, a loyal SAN, who is the lead prosecutor for the federal government, insisted that the Court of Justice Omotosho should have applied that old law, because it was under that law that he was charged.
Justice Omotosho’s judgment, the certified true copy, is about 144 pages. I have just tried to take a random look at it, and he convicted Nnamdi Kanu on all six counts, counts one to six, and the reference in all of those counts is the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act of 2013.”
He then addressed the impact of Kanu’s self-sabotaging actions: “However, the big issue is about how the trial had gone, five judges, and now we have reached this stage at the Federal High Court. The main issue is the fact that the accused person himself dismissed his legal team. Perhaps, if Kanu Agabi and the rest of the defence team had been allowed to defend him, the outcome may well have been slightly different. “There was some talk about written address under Administration of Justice Act of 2015, that is discretionary. A case is not determined on the basis of written address, it is determined on the preponderance of evidence. The judge ruled that the prosecution had proven its case and provided enough evidence to show that Kanu needed to be convicted. In any case, he was left with no option because the accused person was asked to enter a defence. He not only sacked his lawyers, he also behaved in a very confrontational manner in court.”
On the continuation of the case, Abati was emphatic:
“I have seen some reports saying the case has ended. The case has not ended. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has the option of going to the Court of Appeal. He can even go all the way to the Supreme Court. If you look at precedent, it will be very difficult to overturn the evidence from the lower court. The position expressed by Justice Omotosho shows that this matter has not ended because of the political dimension to it. I see a situation whereby, at the end of the day, President Bola Tinubu will be pressured to apply the prerogative of mercy, grant a pardon, or perhaps commute the sentence, or the federal government can take other actions, having refused to interfere in the judicial process by activating Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution, which gives the Attorney General the power to withdraw the case.”
Ultimately, Abati suggested the political sphere might intervene, stating: “As I said, this story has not ended. We will see what happens eventually. But President Tinubu can just grant a pardon or commute the sentence, and then the political part can come in. The President will say the judicial process has gone this way. Okay, let us look at this option. My personal opinion, I am not saying that it is what will happen.”
Abati also introduced the potential for political intervention, suggesting that President Bola Tinubu could eventually face pressure to apply the prerogative of mercy, such as commuting the sentence or granting a pardon.