Uchechi Okwu-Kanu, wife of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu, has criticised the life sentence imposed on her husband, describing the verdict as unlawful and fundamentally unfair.
In a ten-minute video that went viral on Friday, 21 November 2025, she faulted the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, accusing the court of relying on an outdated law and adopting claims she said were never established during the trial.
Kanu was found guilty of terrorism-related offences tied to his declaration of a sit-at-home directive in the South-East, which the court ruled was enforced through intimidation and violent acts.
Justice Omotosho sentenced him to life imprisonment and imposed additional concurrent sentences of 20 years and five years on other counts, noting that international opposition to the death penalty influenced the decision to impose a custodial sentence instead.
The court also linked some of Kanu’s broadcasts to the killing of former presidential aide Ahmed Gulak and described the IPOB leader as someone whose rhetoric endangered public safety.
Reacting to the verdict, Uchechi argued that the prosecution relied on the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Act of 2013 rather than its 2022 replacement, insisting that no court is permitted to apply a law that is no longer in force.
She alleged that her husband’s legal team was denied fair hearing through unresolved applications and restrictions placed on his ability to respond to the charges brought against him.
She further claimed that the judgment incorporated allegations that were never tendered in evidence, including an assertion that Kanu planned attacks on foreign diplomatic missions during the EndSARS protests.
According to her, no witness or document presented in court supported such claims, which she described as “invented conclusions.”
READ ALSO: Nnamdi Kanu: IPOB Rejects Life Sentence, Says Agitation Not Crime’
Uchechi also questioned the court’s jurisdiction over allegations said to have occurred in Kenya, stating that no material evidence or testimony originated from Kenyan authorities.
She argued that without such evidence, the court lacked the legal basis to entertain those aspects of the case.
She concluded that the judgment was compromised by procedural irregularities and would be challenged at the appellate level, adding that the ruling “cannot stand” under constitutional scrutiny.
Kanu’s sentencing has continued to draw attention within Nigeria and internationally, with rights advocates and legal commentators expressing concern about the implications of the case for future politically sensitive prosecutions.
Supporters in the South-East have warned that the outcome may escalate regional tensions unless the issues raised in the trial are addressed transparently on appeal.