Inside Nnamdi Kanu’s tumultuous rise and sudden collapse of influence

By Kazeem Ugbodaga

Nnamdi Kanu’s political journey is one of radical ambition, grassroots mobilization, and controversy, a story that has shaped not only the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) but also the broader discourse on self-determination in Nigeria.

Kanu first gained attention as a vocal critic of the Nigerian state, leveraging his radio platform, Radio Biafra, broadcast from London, to make fiery separatist speeches. According to court testimony, his broadcasts “incited deadly attacks on security forces and citizens in the southeast,” making them central to the government’s case.

He founded IPOB (Indigenous People of Biafra), advocating for the resurrection of Biafra, the short-lived breakaway state of the late 1960s. Judge Omotosho in his final ruling said the evidence showed Kanu’s actions were “preparatory” to terrorism, reinforcing the state’s narrative that IPOB was more than just a political movement.

Legal Battles and Exile

Kanu was first arrested in 2015 on treasonable felony and terrorism charges. In 2017, he was released on bail but disappeared shortly thereafter, raising allegations that he fled in the face of mounting pressure.
For years, he remained a fugitive, until his dramatic re-arrest in Kenya in 2021.

His legal journey has been tumultuous, involving multiple judges, court recusals, and high-stakes arguments. For example, in 2025, he was tried before Judge James Omotosho, the fourth judge to preside over his case.

The prosecution called witnesses who testified behind screens, presenting transcripts of broadcasts and other material evidence linking him to violence in the southeast.

Charges, Conviction, and Sentencing

On 20 November 2025, Kanu was convicted on all seven terrorism-related counts by a Federal High Court in Abuja. The ruling came after he dismissed his entire legal team, argued that the court had no jurisdiction over him, and refused to mount a substantive defense.

Judge Omotosho described the prosecution’s evidence as “uncontroverted” and handed down a life sentence, citing both the gravity of the offenses and a deliberate decision to temper justice with mercy.
Prosecutors had sought the death penalty, but the judge declined, noting, “the death penalty globally is being frowned upon by the international community.”

In his ruling, Omotosho pointed out: “Any self-determination not done according to the constitution of Nigeria is illegal,” rejecting Kanu’s separatist argument. The court also barred Kanu from having digital devices in prison, citing a risk that he could incite further violence.

IPOB’s Campaign: Sit-at-Home Protests and Fallout

Part of IPOB’s strategy during Kanu’s prolonged detention was the enforcement of weekly “sit-at-home” orders—primarily on Mondays, in the Southeast. These orders brought economic life to a halt and drew severe criticism. According to a report by SBM Intelligence, cited by multiple media outlets, the protest cycles resulted in at least 700 deaths and caused an estimated ₦7.6 trillion ($5.3 billion) in economic losses.

The sit-at-home protests became a double-edged sword: while they kept IPOB’s demand for Kanu’s release alive, they also drew condemnation for the violence and disruption associated with enforcement. Critics argue that the “consultative” dimension of his campaign was overshadowed by authoritarian tendencies within parts of IPOB’s structure.

Legacy and Broader Implications

Kanu’s life verdict closes a decade-long saga that has deeply divided opinion in Nigeria. To his supporters, he remains a martyr of self-determination, a symbol of Igbo disenfranchisement and a modern-day political dissident. To his detractors, he’s a dangerous provocateur whose rhetoric and tactics incited violence and destabilized parts of southeastern Nigeria.

His conviction sends a strong message from the Nigerian judiciary: secessionist agitation grounded in violence and calls to arms will be met with legal consequences. But it also raises tough questions about the root causes of secessionist sentiment in Nigeria-economic grievance, ethnic marginalization, and political marginality.

The fallout from his sentencing will likely reshape IPOB itself. With Kanu behind bars, power vacuums could emerge, potentially leading to splits or radicalization within the movement. Already, the spotlight has turned to figures like Simon Ekpa, linked to IPOB activities abroad.

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale

Nnamdi Kanu’s rise and fall encapsulate a powerful but perilous brand of political activism. He galvanized a generation of Igbo youth, reanimated Biafran nationalism, and forced Nigerian authorities to confront decades-long grievances. Yet his strategy, broadcasting incendiary speech, enforcing disruptive civil disobedience, and challenging the legitimacy of Nigerian courts, also provoked lethal backlash, state suppression, and ultimately, his own downfall.

His sentencing marks not just the end of one chapter but a turning point in Nigeria’s conversation about secession, reconciliation, and national unity. Whether IPOB will pivot toward genuine dialogue or fracture into more radical elements remains uncertain. But what is clear is this: Kanu’s life has deepened the urgency of addressing the unresolved questions at the heart of Nigeria’s unity.