Nigeria’s ruling class is once again under fire for how it treats “terrorists”, but the contradictions are glaring. While Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is being tried and possibly sentenced to death, critics say the same judiciary system has shown softer handling, or even outright clemency, for Boko Haram militants. For many, this is not just justice failing, it’s a political system protecting some violence, punishing others.

What’s Happening: Kanu’s Conviction and Death Sentence Demand

• On November 20, 2025, a Federal High Court in Abuja convicted Nnamdi Kanu on all seven terrorism counts.
• The Federal Government is asking the court to impose the death penalty on him for several of those counts.
• Human rights advocates and Kanu’s legal team argue that his trial is politically motivated, claiming that the government is “hiding under a facade of justice.”
• Activist Omoyele Sowore warned that “a secret decision” has already been taken within the current regime to either execute Kanu or condemn him to life imprisonment.
• According to court records, some of the charges under Nigeria’s Terrorism Prevention Act carry mandatory death sentences.

The Double Standard: Boko Haram’s Treatment by the State

• Nigeria has a long-running insurgency fought by Boko Haram and ISWAP. At the same time, some former militants have been rehabilitated or reintegrated, raising concerns about how “terrorists” are selectively punished or pardoned.
• According to Kanu’s supporters and legal team, this discrepancy suggests political favoritism, that some violent groups receive a path to reconciliation while IPOB members are treated as irredeemable threats.
• Observers argue that the selective mercies granted to jihadi militants, while separatists face the harshest penalties, highlight a dangerous bias in prosecution and sentencing.

Why This Undermines Nigeria’s Judiciary

1. Perception of Political Trials
   The timing and severity of Kanu’s prosecution fuel the notion that Nigeria’s legal system is being weaponized against political opponents, not just criminals.
2. Unequal Application of Justice
   When one group is “rehabilitated” and another is executed, it sends a chilling message: the law is not blind.
3. Weak Rule of Law
   If political decisions dictate who is tried harshly and who is let off, the judiciary’s independence and legitimacy are called into question.
4. National Stability at Risk
   Harsh sentences for separatist activists could deepen divisions in the Southeast, especially as Boko Haram and other militant groups remain ongoing security risks.

The Stakes Are High

• For Kanu and his supporters, this case is about survival, and about whether the Nigerian state can fairly handle political dissent.
• For the judiciary, how this sentence is delivered will be a major test of its autonomy and commitment to equal justice.
• For Nigerians at large, this is a moment to ask: Who does “terrorism” punish, and who does it protect?