₦airaland Forum

Last weekend, I came across a documentary online of an incident that happened in Ethiopia, a terrible incident. An armed rebel group invaded a village and left destruction. Survivors narrated how the armed men stormed into the village, shooting in all directions. People were rounded up, men seperated from women. The men were lined up and shot, while some of the women were sexually assaulted in front of their children. Many houses were looted then burnt

I thought that this was terrorism and violence. However, Justice Omotosho, the judge that handled the case of IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has made us know that terrorism and violence is all about "talking". The Judge rendered his judgement in which he kept saying Nnamdi Kanu said this, said that, ordered this, ordered that, made broadcast.

In other words, "Nnamdi Kanu talked". The judge could not tell anyone that Nnamdi Kanu's words led to violence, killings or harm. He couldn't do this because unlike social media, courts are not places of speculation, you have to prove anything you allege.

The judge called Kanu a terrorist based on spoken words alone, he reduced a very serious issue such as terrorism and violence to what words come out of a persons mouth. What sort of terrorist goes to announce his plans of violence on Radio first?

Armed men invaded Yelwata, Benue State, and burnt over 200 people alive. Can you imagine if I go to Yelwata and tell them that what happened to them is not terrorism, that terrorism is if the killers had gone on Radio to announce or order that they be burnt?

Or that what happened in the village in Ethiopia was not violence or terrorism because the armed men should have announced it on Radio only

Omotosho has shown us how bad the judiciary has become. Crime is mainly about what was done, not what was said. When a judge believes that terrorism is all about spoken words, Radio broadcasts, sit at home orders,which is still spoken words, in a country where communities are being invaded daily, people killed or abducted, property destroyed, then we are in a big mess.

Someone should tell the judge that terrorism is about the use of violence, and violence must be an action. No amount of spoken words amounts to an action. No amount of words amounts to violence. A judge who believes that spoken words alone amounts to violence or terrorism, has no business presiding over court affairs.

You turned around and sentenced a man to life in jail based only on the words that came out of his mouth? You reduced terrorism to mere words alone? A terrorist is determined by what he says and not what he does?

We are finished

Leave sentiments aside. Mazi Kanu is a terrorist.

You can say that again. The judge has no business on the bench.

Continue to dey blow grammar online

What do you know about the law? Oga go and take your medication and stop displaying your folly online

mohims:
What do you know about the law? Oga go and take your medication and stop displaying your folly online

Yes, terrorism is all about talking, broadcasts, and speeches made

Did you people wrote this kind of epistle to him when he embarked on a lost journey?

gidgiddy:
Last weekend, I came across a documentary online of an incident that happened in Ethiopia, a terrible incident. An armed rebel group invaded a village and left destruction. Survivors narrated how the armed men stormed into the village, shooting in all directions. People were rounded up, men seperated from women. The men were lined up and shot, while some of the women were sexually assaulted in front of their children. Many houses were looted then burnt

I thought that this was terrorism and violence. However, Justice Omotosho, the judge that handled the case of IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has made us know that terrorism and violence is all about "talking". The Judge rendered his judgement in which he kept saying Nnamdi Kanu said this, said that, ordered this, ordered that, made broadcast.

In other words, "Nnamdi Kanu talked". The judge could not tell anyone that Nnamdi Kanu's words led to violence, killings or harm. He couldn't do this because unlike social media, courts are not places of speculation, you have to prove anything you allege.

The judge called Kanu a terrorist based on spoken words alone, he reduced a very serious issue such as terrorism and violence to what words come out of a persons mouth. What sort of terrorist goes to announce his plans of violence on Radio first?

Armed men invaded Yelwata, Benue State, and burnt over 200 people alive. Can you imagine if I go to Yelwata and tell them that what happened to them is not terrorism, that terrorism is if the killers had gone on Radio to announce or order that they be burnt?

Or that what happened in the village in Ethiopia was not violence or terrorism because the armed men should have announced it on Radio only

Omotosho has shown us how bad the judiciary has become. Crime is mainly about what was done, not what was said. When a judge believes that terrorism is all about spoken words, Radio broadcasts, sit at home orders,which is still spoken words, in a country where communities are being invaded daily, people killed or abducted, property destroyed, then we are in a big mess.

Someone should tell the judge that terrorism is about the use of violence, and violence must be an action. No amount of spoken words amounts to an action. No amount of words amounts to violence. A judge who believes that spoken words alone amounts to violence or terrorism, has no business presiding over court affairs.

You turned around and sentenced a man to life in jail based only on the words that came out of his mouth? You reduced terrorism to mere words alone? A terrorist is determined by what he says and not what he does?

We are finished

You are very right, Justice Omotosho messed up and should be reported to the National Judicial Council. The terrorist committed crimes against the people of Nigeria and also planned to commit criminality against the US and UK, the Laws under which he was charged and convicted says that he should be sentenced to Death without any other option. Why then did Justice Omotosho bend the Law?


The Federal Government should appeal the ruling at the next higher court

gidgiddy:
Yes, terrorism is all about talking, broadcasts, and speeches made

Simon Ekpa was also jailed for broadcasting and speeches so what's your point?

The judge's decision will be reviewed by a higher court.

Simony Ekpa was convicted in Finland for his words...why should his fellow charlatan Kanu not be convicted.

Two megalomaniac ultra lightweights that think they matter in the grand scheme of things.

Ekpa is not coming out till 2031. By then him body go don calm down small.

Two dimwits that felt untouchable

Na the guys wey go dey hang their madame legs na them gain pass.

gidgiddy:
Last weekend, I came across a documentary online of an incident that happened in Ethiopia, a terrible incident. An armed rebel group invaded a village and left destruction. Survivors narrated how the armed men stormed into the village, shooting in all directions. People were rounded up, men seperated from women. The men were lined up and shot, while some of the women were sexually assaulted in front of their children. Many houses were looted then burnt

I thought that this was terrorism and violence. However, Justice Omotosho, the judge that handled the case of IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, has made us know that terrorism and violence is all about "talking". The Judge rendered his judgement in which he kept saying Nnamdi Kanu said this, said that, ordered this, ordered that, made broadcast.

In other words, "Nnamdi Kanu talked". The judge could not tell anyone that Nnamdi Kanu's words led to violence, killings or harm. He couldn't do this because unlike social media, courts are not places of speculation, you have to prove anything you allege.

The judge called Kanu a terrorist based on spoken words alone, he reduced a very serious issue such as terrorism and violence to what words come out of a persons mouth. What sort of terrorist goes to announce his plans of violence on Radio first?

Armed men invaded Yelwata, Benue State, and burnt over 200 people alive. Can you imagine if I go to Yelwata and tell them that what happened to them is not terrorism, that terrorism is if the killers had gone on Radio to announce or order that they be burnt?

Or that what happened in the village in Ethiopia was not violence or terrorism because the armed men should have announced it on Radio only

Omotosho has shown us how bad the judiciary has become. Crime is mainly about what was done, not what was said. When a judge believes that terrorism is all about spoken words, Radio broadcasts, sit at home orders,which is still spoken words, in a country where communities are being invaded daily, people killed or abducted, property destroyed, then we are in a big mess.

Someone should tell the judge that terrorism is about the use of violence, and violence must be an action. No amount of spoken words amounts to an action. No amount of words amounts to violence. A judge who believes that spoken words alone amounts to violence or terrorism, has no business presiding over court affairs.

You turned around and sentenced a man to life in jail based only on the words that came out of his mouth? You reduced terrorism to mere words alone? A terrorist is determined by what he says and not what he does?

We are finished

Na today you just realised you are finished?
When he was giving orders to kpai any security agent in SE and collect their guns on live broadcast you were hailing him as a brave warrior and saviour.
When you were busy supporting illegal sit at home were people are forced to stay indoors or come out and be killed as ordered by Kanu you never knew it is an act of terrorism even though I have been warming ipo.bs of the consequences of their foolish actions .
Simon Ekperima Ekpa was convicted in Finland what did he do differently from Kanu?interestingly you support two of them.
Gidgiddy cry us a river.
In a functioning country people like you are supposed to be in jail.

This whole thing is not about terrorism.
This is a personal fight by the yorubas because Nnamdi Kanu wanted to scatter their beloved one Nigeria because they know that without one Nigeria they are nothing.
Just look at their kits and kin in Togo and Benin republic and you will get a picture of what will befall them should Nigeria break up, so all the whole hatred towards the igbos is borne out of this morbid fear.

The writer is yet to recover from the shock of the Kanu's sentencing.

The topic is no longer about Kanu's sentencing but about the judge.

The agony is just too much to bear.

@gidgiddy
First of all you need to know that when Kanu failed to put up a defence, he summarily accepted whatever the prosecution accused him of. Silence means approval is a legal principle as old as time.
So you can't blame the judge here. The blame should be to Kanu who chose to make himself a Martyr by forgoing his defence. That's the point I've been expecting zombies to make since yesterday on a thread where I asked what constituted am act of terrorism but they've been attacking me instead. Mvnster even said I'm ipob

Secondly and more importantly, while what you say might not be an act, it is an incitement which is almost at same level as an act except where you can show that the context of your speech is being misconstrued. In the case of Kanu, calling for an attack on agents of state such as the police and army constitutes an act of terrorism. More importantly, he failed to put up a defence to the accusations which I already explained above is an admission of guilt.
Even AU and UN charters and conventions frown on verbal attacks and dehumanisation of people based on their tribes and nationality. Kanu did this a lot without guardrails. Maybe he did not intend for it to get this far but it did and he has to bear responsibility for it.
As for calling for Biafra, I'm sure you don't need to be educated that it's simply treason as far as Nigerian laws are concerned.
N.B. check out the case of Rwanda and the owners and broadcasters of RTLM

helinues:
Continue to dey blow grammar online

all their Nigeria will burn if anything happen to Kanu…they have used their useless toothless mouth to finish Kanu’s life and their own papa Dey house Dey sleep

Kukutente23:
@gidgiddy
First of all you need to know that when Kanu failed to put up a defence, he summarily accepted whatever the prosecution accused him of. Silence means approval is a legal principle as old as time.
So you can't blame the judge here. The blame should be to Kanu who chose to make himself a Martyr by forgoing his defence. That's the point I've been expecting zombies to make since yesterday on a thread where I asked what constituted am act of terrorism but they've been attacking me instead. Mvnster even said I'm ipob

Secondly and more importantly, while what you say might not be an act, it is an incitement which is almost at same level as an act except where you can show that the context of your speech is being misconstrued. In the case of Kanu, calling for an attack on agents of state such as the police and army constitutes an act of terrorism. More importantly, he failed to put up a defence to the accusations which I already explained above is an admission of guilt.
Even AU and UN charters and conventions frown on verbal attacks and dehumanisation of people based on their tribes and nationality. Kanu did this a lot without guardrails. Maybe he did not intend for it to get this far but it did and he has to bear responsibility for it.
As for calling for Biafra, I'm sure you don't need to be educated that it's simply treason as far as Nigerian laws are concerned.

+
Generally fair, stubborn aburo, just just a few notes.

1. There is known to law something such as a "no-case submission." In other words one can actually say that the prosecution (or plaintiff in a civil case) has set up no case that needs to be defended. This I suspect is what he was trying to say. Highly ill-advised since there was a case to be defended.

2. What he did was not just incitement. In some cases he gave out instructions to his followers to take certain acts. That is akin to someone hiring a hitman or ordering a hit when in a position to do so. In such a case, you have as good as done the act yourself.

3. Calling for Biafra is not a crime. International Charters actually recognize that right, it is the right of all peoples to self determination. The simple thing would be to do it legally - i.e: seek an amendment to the constitution to permit a referendum on such, etc. All this can be pursued legally.

gidgiddy:
Yes, terrorism is all about talking, broadcasts, and speeches made

Please don't let sentiments cloud your sense of reasoning and judgement. Who is responsible for the insecurity in the East today and all the 95% of the killings in the East? You'd be lying to yourself if you say it's not Nnamdi Kanu. He incited violent attacks, killings and all the evil happening there through his radio Biafra. When Ikosi was killed, he ordered that 2000 people must be killed for his death. He ordered attacks on our uniform men. What do you call such a person? He is nothing but sheer evil. The souls of the innocent people he killed are crying for justice. Anyone who supports such a person is nothing but evil. You can clearly see what the East has now turned into. I lived in 3 Eastern states before IPOB wahalla started and I can tell you that the East used to be a very nice and peaceful place to live in but not anymore. It's really pathetic to say the least

Op is this the best you can do⁉️😁😄😛😅😂🤣 After bragging that Kanu can't be jailed and UK,USA, Israel will bomb Nigeria if they dear try to jail Kanu😁😄😛😅😂🤣 Shameless ipob members flooding Social Media with so much tears 😭 since yesterday's judgement after all the threats, this is the best y'all can do.

As @Okoriawusa would keep saying to you
Gidigidi Ifele Megbuo Gi

Don't worry the Judge also recertified ipob as an International Terrorist group, now that Kanu and Ekpa have been caged and gagged, PBAT is going after you and ipob members in diaspora sponsoring ipob madness next.

Hand go touch you and you'll join Kanu to share his small prison cell and eat watery beans with him soon.

Kukutente23:
@gidgiddy
First of all you need to know that when Kanu failed to put up a defence, he summarily accepted whatever the prosecution accused him of. Silence means approval is a legal principle as old as time.
So you can't blame the judge here. The blame should be to Kanu who chose to make himself a Martyr by forgoing his defence. That's the point I've been expecting zombies to make since yesterday on a thread where I asked what constituted am act of terrorism but they've been attacking me instead. Mvnster even said I'm ipob

Secondly and more importantly, while what you say might not be an act, it is an incitement which is almost at same level as an act except where you can show that the context of your speech is being misconstrued. In the case of Kanu, calling for an attack on agents of state such as the police and army constitutes an act of terrorism. More importantly, he failed to put up a defence to the accusations which I already explained above is an admission of guilt.
Even AU and UN charters and conventions frown on verbal attacks and dehumanisation of people based on their tribes and nationality. Kanu did this a lot without guardrails. Maybe he did not intend for it to get this far but it did and he has to bear responsibility for it.
As for calling for Biafra, I'm sure you don't need to be educated that it's simply treason as far as Nigerian laws are concerned.

Kanu not putting up a defence isn't the issue, its his trial, he can choose not to put up a defence.

The point is that a Nigerian Judge called Kanu a terrorist solely on spoken words, not actions. He repeatedly described Kanu's words as violence its self. A Judge who regards spoken words as violence, as terrorism, but cant even tell you the violence or terrorism it caused, is no Judge. This is a biased individual

mohims:
Please don't let sentiments cloud your sense of reasoning and judgement. Who is responsible for the insecurity in the East today and all the 95% of the killings in the East? You'd be lying to yourself if you say it's not Nnamdi Kanu. He incited violent attacks, killings and all the evil happening there through his radio Biafra. When Ikosi was killed, he ordered that 2000 people must be killed for his death. He ordered attacks on our uniform men. What do you call such a person? He is nothing but sheer evil. The souls of the innocent people he killed are crying for justice. Anyone who supports such a person is nothing but evil. You can clearly see what the East has now turned into. I lived in 3 Eastern states before IPOB wahalla started and I can tell you that the East used to be a very nice and peaceful place to live in but not anymore. It's really pathetic to say the least

Thats why I said that a court of law is not social media. Social media, you speculate what you like. But in a court of law, you prove what you allege. Of Nnamdi Kanu or IPOB were were causing violence anywhere, it is for the prosecution to prove it. If you say that Kanu said something on Radio, and it caused violence somewhere, come to court and prove it. But this was a case of Kanu said this, Kanu said that, and that the words themselves were terrorism

If spoken words alone is terrorism in Nigeria, most countries of the world that know what terrorism is are not going to take Nigeria seriously

You guys are stretching this too far. Kanu was not jailed just because of words. Omo, abeg.

gidgiddy:
Yes, terrorism is all about talking, broadcasts, and speeches made

your lord and savior has already pronounced something in your life,see the link below.

Justice James Omotosho used words directly from Nnamdi Kanu to CONVICT Nnamdi Kanu. pic.twitter.com/ifM8QxPvqE

— Senior Pastor Okezie James Atañi (@Onsogbu) November 21, 2025

gidgiddy:
Kanu not putting up a defence isn't the issue, its his trial, he can choose not to put up a defence.

The point is that a Nigerian Judge called Kanu a terrorist solely on spoken words, not actions. He repeatedly described Kanu's words as violence its self. A Judge who regards spoken words as violence, as terrorism, but cant even tell you the violence or terrorism it caused, is no Judge. This is a biased individual

But don't you think Kanu should have put up a defence himself that you don't become a terrorist solely on words you spoke?
It's not the work of the judge to put up a defence for him.
The Judge is supposed to be neutral

DeepSight:
+
Generally fair, stubborn aburo, just just a few notes.

1. There is known to law something such as a "no-case submission." In other words one can actually say that the prosecution (or plaintiff in a civil case) has set up no case that needs to be defended. This I suspect is what he was trying to say. Highly ill-advised since there was a case to be defended.

2. What he did was not just incitement. In some cases he gave out instructions to his followers to take certain acts. That is akin to someone hiring a hitman or ordering a hit when in a position to do so. In such a case, you have as good as done the act yourself.

3. Calling for Biafra is not a crime. International Charters actually recognize that right, it is the right of all peoples to self determination. The simple thing would be to do it legally - i.e: seek an amendment to the constitution to permit a referendum on such, etc. All this can be pursued legally.

For your 2, has any IPOB member been convicted who confessed that they were following Kanu's instructions? I believe to tie him to some actions it has to be established that they were carried out by the members of his group like the Lagos burning. That's actually the crux of my curiosity about hanging the burning of Lagos and the murder of Gulak on him

Kukutente23:
For your 2, has any IPOB member been convicted who confessed that they were following Kanu's instructions? I believe to tie him to some actions it has to be established that they were carried out by the members of his group like the Lagos burning. That's actually the crux of my curiosity about hanging the burning of Lagos and the murder of Gulak on him

+
Fair point.

The judge's decision is a reflection of the law and not personal opinion. Kanu has the right to appeal.