Human rights activist and former African Action Congress (AAC) presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, has condemned Thursday’s judgment in the trial of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, describing it as a “political decision” shaped by government interests rather than judicial principles.

Sowore, who had previously raised concerns about the direction of the case, insisted that the verdict was predetermined by President Bola Tinubu’s administration.

“On November 5th, 2025, I publicly warned that the verdict in Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s case had already been decided by the Bola Ahmed Tinubu regime. Today, they executed that script word for word,” he said.

He argued that the court’s ruling merely fulfilled a political directive:
“What we witnessed today was not justice. It was the execution of a political decision taken long before the court sat, long before arguments were heard, and long before any evidence was considered.”

Sowore urged Nigerians to reflect on the implications of the ruling for the nation’s democracy. “Nigeria must decide what kind of nation it wants to be,” he said.

He recalled issuing an earlier alert based on information he said came from sources within the government.
“For the avoidance of doubt and to alert the public, it has become clear that a secret decision has long been reached within the @officialABAT regime regarding the fate of @MaziNnamdiKanu. The plan — devised through a high-level political conspiracy — is to either sentence him to death or condemn him to life imprisonment. This outcome, predetermined far in advance, is now being dressed up as judicial procedure.”

According to Sowore, the conduct of the trial showed an attempt to legitimise a conclusion already agreed upon behind closed doors.

He alleged that Justice James Omotosho was expected to interpret Kanu’s refusal to open his defence as an admission of guilt — a move he described as convenient for securing a prearranged outcome.

Sowore also drew parallels between Kanu’s trial and the November 1995 execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight Ogoni activists under the military regime of General Sani Abacha.

“The ruling is anticipated this November, a month with a haunting historical precedent,” he said. “Only the year has changed — this is 2025, not 1995 — but the machinery of repression grinds on.”

He maintained that Kanu’s trial had moved beyond legal arguments to become a moral test for Nigeria:
“The trial of Nnamdi Kanu has ceased to be about justice; it is now a test of conscience for the Nigerian state and its citizens.”

Earlier, Reporters reported that the Federal High Court in Abuja convicted the detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader on all charges after ruling that he failed to enter a defence or counter the prosecution’s case.

Justice James Omotosho held that the prosecution’s evidence stood uncontested due to Kanu’s refusal to participate fully in his defence and his removal from the courtroom over repeated unruly conduct. The judge had earlier ruled that proceedings — including the delivery of judgment — would continue in Kanu’s absence.

In the judgment, the court held that Kanu’s declaration of a Monday sit-at-home order across the Southeast — enforced with threats and violence — amounted to a terrorist act. The judge emphasised that only the Nigerian President, under Section 305 of the Constitution, has the authority to impose movement restrictions.

“The people of the Southeast cannot be ordered to sit at home by a person who is not a recognised official of the Federal Government or any state government,” Justice Omotosho said.

He cited testimony from a prosecution witness who served in Imo State and confirmed that the sit-at-home order had for years left towns and farmlands deserted.

The court concluded that the prosecution proved the elements of count two, which accused Kanu of professing to be a member and leader of IPOB, a proscribed organisation, in violation of Section 16 of the Terrorism Prevention Act.

“Consequently, the defendant is hereby convicted on count two,” Justice Omotosho ruled.