Human rights activist and former presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, has accused the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu of predetermining the outcome of the trial involving the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

In a statement released on Thursday, Sowore said the judgment delivered was merely the execution of a decision allegedly reached months earlier within the federal government.

Sowore recalled that on November 5, 2025, he publicly warned that the Tinubu-led administration had already settled on Kanu’s fate. According to him, credible information from sources within the government indicated that a “high-level political conspiracy” had been concluded to either sentence Kanu to death or impose a life sentence.

He cited his earlier warning:

“It has become clear that a secret decision has long been reached within the Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu regime regarding the fate of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. The plan… is to either sentence him to death or condemn him to life imprisonment. This outcome, predetermined far in advance, is now being dressed up in the guise of judicial procedure.”

Sowore further claimed that the presiding judge, Justice James Omotosho, was expected to rule that Kanu’s refusal to open his defence amounted to an admission of guilt—an interpretation he described as “convenient” and tailored to justify a verdict allegedly settled behind closed doors.

He also drew parallels between the current situation and the controversial 1995 sentencing of environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni leaders during the military regime of General Sani Abacha, noting that both rulings occurred in November.

According to Sowore, the developments signify that “the machinery of repression” remains active in Nigeria, despite the passage of time.

“What we witnessed today was not justice,” he said, “but the implementation of a political decision taken long before the court proceedings began.”

Sowore concluded by urging Nigerians to reflect on the country’s direction and to demand fairness in judicial processes.