Kanu’s Conviction Sparks Outrage as Activists Accuse Judge of Inventing Embassy Bomb Plot

Kanu’s Conviction Sparks Outrage as Activists Accuse Judge of Inventing Embassy Bomb Plot

A coalition of rights activists has taken strong exception to the judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, in which the jurist convicted the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, on terrorism charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Justice Omotosho, while delivering judgment on Thursday, described Kanu as an “international terrorist,” alleging that he issued directives for attacks on the United States and United Kingdom embassies in Nigeria.

But the coalition — comprising the American Veterans of Igbo Descent, Ambassadors for Self-Determination, and the Rising Sun Foundation — dismissed the judge’s claim as a “fictional insertion” that never formed part of the charges, evidence, or testimonies presented during trial.

In a strongly worded statement issued on Thursday evening, the groups said the alleged plot to bomb US and UK missions was never mentioned by the prosecution, never tendered as evidence, and never raised by any witness throughout the proceedings.

‘A fabrication with no basis in the record’

The groups insisted that the judge’s reference to an embassy bombing plot has “collapsed the foundation of the entire judgment,” arguing that a criminal conviction cannot be anchored on allegations that were not tendered or tested in open court.

They said:

“No charge, no witness, no exhibit, and no intelligence report made any reference to an alleged plan to bomb the US or UK embassies. The claim exists only in Justice Omotosho’s judgment. It is a pure invention.”

According to them, official transcripts of the proceedings — which they vowed to release to the public — will show that the judge relied on extraneous and fabricated material, thereby denying Kanu the constitutional right to fair hearing.

‘A politically dangerous narrative’

The coalition further questioned the logic of linking Kanu with an anti-Western plot, noting his long-established pro-US and pro-UK posture.

They recalled Kanu’s 2017 Trump Solidarity Rally in Port Harcourt and his presence at a 2020 Trump campaign event in Iowa, asserting that these actions contradict the judge’s portrayal of him as hostile to Western interests.

“For a Nigerian judge to twist this history into a phantom terror plot is dishonest and dangerous. It damages the credibility of the judiciary and portrays Nigeria’s courts as willing instruments of political persecution,” the statement reads.

‘Judgment poisoned by fabrication’

The groups argued that once a judge imports a “grave falsehood” into a criminal judgment, the decision becomes “legally unsafe, morally bankrupt, and constitutionally void.”

They said Justice Omotosho effectively stepped out of the role of an impartial arbiter and “became a prosecution witness writing stories that never appeared in evidence.”

They added that the error alone was sufficient grounds for an appellate court to overturn the conviction and for the National Judicial Council (NJC) to initiate disciplinary proceedings.

Next Steps

The coalition outlined several immediate steps:

Publication of full certified transcripts of the trial.

Filing an appeal challenging the judgment as being based on fabricated facts.

Petitioning the NJC to investigate how the alleged falsehood entered the judgment.

Engaging US and UK authorities to clarify that no such plot was ever mentioned in court.

They warned that the alleged fabrication, if left unchallenged, would deepen public distrust in the judicial system.

“This is no longer about Kanu alone. It is about whether Nigerians can trust that judgments will be based on evidence, not fiction. What happened in this case is a stain on the court and, if unchecked, a stain on the judiciary.”