The Life Sentence Of Nnamdi Kanu: Legal And Human Rights Perspectives

Introduction

On the 20^th day of November 2025, Nnamdi Kanu who was tried at the Federal High Court, Abuja for the offence of Treason, was sentenced to life imprisonment under the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013.¹ While the Act allows the death penalty, the court exercised discretion, opting for life imprisonment. This article examines the sentence's conformity with the Nigerian law and Nigeria's obligations under international human-rights treaties, specifically Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR), which guarantee the right to life and impose safeguards where deprivation of life is envisaged.

Legal Framework Governing the Life Sentence

I. Nigerian Law: Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013

The Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 is the primary statute under which Kanu was convicted. The Act criminalises acts of terrorism, incitement, and membership of proscribed organisations, prescribing capital punishment for certain offences. However, the Act confers discretion on courts to impose lesser penalties, including life imprisonment, depending on the circumstances.² The court in Kanu's case exercised this discretion, emphasising the current global trend which discourages the imposition of the death penalty. Life imprisonment thus reflects a deliberate choice within the statutory framework, ensuring that punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the offences while avoiding the irreversibility of death.

II. International Obligations

1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Nigeria ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1993. Article 6(1) recognises that "every human being has the inherent right to life" while Article 6(2) limits the death penalty to "the most serious crimes" and mandates strict legal safeguards.³

Nigeria has not ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which calls for the abolition of the death penalty.⁴ Consequently, while the ICCPR obliges Nigeria to uphold fair trial and life rights, it does not legally prohibit the death penalty. The choice of life imprisonment is therefore consistent with Nigeria's ICCPR obligations, preserving the right to life while satisfying statutory penal objectives.

b. African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

Nigeria is a State Party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, ratified in 1983. Article 4 guarantees the right to life and stipulates that any deprivation of life must follow the law.⁵ The Charter does not explicitly abolish capital punishment, but regional bodies, including the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, encourage states to observe a moratorium on executions.⁶

By imposing life imprisonment, the Nigerian court aligned domestic sentencing with emerging regional human-rights standards, reflecting restraint and deference to international norms.

Analysis of the Life Sentence

I. Judicial Discretion and Proportionality

The Federal High Court's decision demonstrates careful application of judicial discretion. The Court considered the severity of the offences, including alleged acts of incitement and threats to national security, against the backdrop of available statutory punishments. Life imprisonment represents the maximum alternative to death, ensuring both deterrence and proportionate justice.

Importantly, Nigerian courts have consistently recognised that discretion in sentencing is a core feature of the criminal justice system, allowing judges to consider mitigating circumstances, social context, and human-rights obligations. This writer maintains the view that the life sentence embodies all of these considerations.

II. Human-Rights Implications

Life imprisonment, as opposed to execution, reflects evolving human-rights norms both nationally and internationally. The sentence respects:

1. Right to life: Protected under Article 6 of the ICCPR and Article 4 of the African Charter, which recognise the inherent right to life and restrict arbitrary deprivation of life.
2. Right to fair trial: Life imprisonment safeguards the individual's right to life by avoiding the irreversible consequences of the death penalty, thereby preserving the possibility of appeal and clemency.
3. Alignment with regional trends: African states and commissions increasingly favour moratoria and gradual abolition of the death penalty.

The Court's decision in Kanu's case is therefore consistent with global human rights developments, even as Nigeria maintains sovereign discretion over capital punishment.

III. Practical and Policy Significance

1. Balance Between Security and Human Rights: Life imprisonment signals that national security concerns can be addressed without resorting to irreversible death sentences.
2. Deterrence and Legal Messaging: The sentence communicates that serious terrorism offences are punishable at the highest level, while remaining within the bounds of proportional justice.
3. Influence on Future Cases: By demonstrating judicial restraint, the life sentence imposed may guide future courts in handling cases involving terrorism, sedition, or national-security offences, promoting consistent sentencing practices.
4. International Perception: The decision to impose life imprisonment rather than the death penalty underscores Nigeria's commitment to human-rights-compliant sentencing, despite the absence of a formal international obligation abolishing capital punishment.

Conclusion

The life sentence passed on Nnamdi Kanu represents a legally and morally defensible choice. It complies with the Terrorism (Prevention) Act while reflecting the guarantees of Article 6 of the ICCPR and Article 4 of the African Charter, protecting the right to life and due process. By opting for life imprisonment over death, the Court demonstrated judicial discretion that aligns with international human-rights norms, providing a balanced response to serious criminal conduct without invoking the irreversible consequences of capital punishment.

Footnotes

1 CNN World, 'Nigerian Court Convicts Separatist Leader Kanu for Terrorism' https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/20/africa/nnamdi-kanu-terrorism-conviction-intl accessed 26 November, 2025.

2 Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013, ss.1-2.

3 United Nations, 'International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights' https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights accessed 26 November 2025.

4 United Nations, 'Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty' https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/second-optional-protocol-international-covenant-civil-and accessed 26 November 2025.

5 'African Union, 'African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights' https://au.int/en/treaties/african-charter-human-and-peoples-rights accessed 26 November 2025.

6 African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, 'Resolution Calling on State Parties to Observe a Moratorium on the Death Penalty - ACHPR/Res.136(XXXXIV)08' https://achpr.au.int/index.php/en/adopted-resolutions/136-resolution-calling-state-parties-observe-moratorium-death-penalty accessed 27 November 2025.