A Finnish Court of Appeal has reduced the prison sentence of Biafra separatist agitator Simon Ekpa from six years to four years while upholding his convictions for terrorism-related offences.
The court delivered its judgment on Thursday, October 15, 2026, affirming Ekpa’s convictions for participating in the activities of a terrorist group and publicly inciting people to commit crimes with terrorist intent.
According to a report by Channels Television, the court reduced the sentence after considering circumstances surrounding the offences that it said bore similarities to situations that could justify exemption from criminal liability, including civil war, self-defence and necessity.
Ekpa, 41, has been in custody since his arrest in Finland in November 2024. He appealed the September 2025 judgment of the Päijät-Häme District Court, which sentenced him to six years in prison. Prosecutors also appealed, seeking a harsher sentence.
Court Examines Alleged Armed Conflict in South-East
According to the appeal court’s statement, prosecutors alleged that Ekpa operated from Lahti, Finland, as the supreme commander of several armed groups in South-East Nigeria.
The groups were accused of seeking to establish an independent Biafran state, with members allegedly carrying out attacks on police stations, government buildings and military roadblocks.
The appeal court said it reviewed the prosecution’s evidence and reached the same conclusions as the district court regarding Ekpa’s activities.
During the appeal, Ekpa presented additional evidence to support his argument that a non-international armed conflict existed in South-East Nigeria.
He argued that international humanitarian law, rather than Finland’s domestic terrorism laws, should apply to his activities, which he maintained were connected to the conflict and lacked terrorist intent.
The court examined the nature of the conflict, the organisation of the armed groups and the intensity of the fighting. It also compared the evidence with assessments of the Balkan wars by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
The court found that the deployment of heavy weapons, including armoured vehicles and combat helicopters, by Nigerian government forces supported the argument that an internal armed conflict existed.
It also said the organisation and equipment of the armed groups provided some support for that position.
However, the court ruled that the intensity of the fighting did not meet the threshold required under international case law for the situation to be classified as a civil war.
Why the Court Reduced Ekpa’s Sentence
The court noted that the clashes largely involved isolated attacks on police stations and road checkpoints.
It said there was insufficient evidence that the armed groups associated with Ekpa could sustain military operations involving strategic planning, prolonged fighting and continuity of operations.
The absence of reports of significant civilian displacement from the affected areas also weighed against classifying the situation as a civil war.
Although the court rejected Ekpa’s argument that the conflict removed terrorist intent from his actions, it considered the circumstances relevant to determining his punishment.
It consequently reduced his sentence under Chapter 6, Section 8(1), paragraph 4 of Finland’s Criminal Code, while maintaining his convictions for the two terrorism-related offences.
The court added that Ekpa had also been convicted of two other crimes by the district court, but those convictions were not part of the appeal.
The case was decided by Judges Aki Rasilainen and Antti Santaranta, alongside Assistant Judge Johanna Puukka.
