A Finnish court of appeal has reduced the prison sentence of Biafra separatist leader Simon Ekpa from six years to four years while upholding his convictions for terrorism-related offences.
In its ruling on Thursday, the court upheld his convictions for participating in the activities of a terrorist group and publicly inciting people to commit crimes with terrorist intent.
The 41-year-old has been in custody since November 2024, following his arrest by Finnish law enforcement authorities.
Ekpa appealed the September 2025 judgment of the Päijät-Häme District Court, which sentenced him to six years in prison. Prosecutors also appealed, seeking a longer sentence.
However, the appeal court reduced his sentence, citing circumstances surrounding the offences that it said resembled situations in which exemptions from criminal liability, including self-defence and necessity, could arise.
The district court had accepted the prosecution’s argument that Ekpa operated from Finland as the supreme commander of several armed groups in south-eastern Nigeria.
The groups allegedly sought to establish an independent Biafran state, with members accused of attacking police stations, government buildings and military roadblocks.
After reviewing the evidence, the appeal court said it reached the same conclusions as the lower court regarding Ekpa’s activities.
During the appeal, Ekpa presented additional evidence to support his claim that an internal armed conflict was ongoing in south-eastern Nigeria.
He argued that international humanitarian law, rather than Finland’s domestic terrorism laws, should apply because his activities were connected to the conflict and were not motivated by terrorist intent.
The court examined the conflict’s nature, the organisation of the armed groups and the intensity of the fighting. It also compared the evidence with legal assessments of the Balkan wars by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
According to the court, evidence that Nigerian government forces deployed heavy weapons, including armoured vehicles and combat helicopters, supported the argument that an internal armed conflict existed.
However, it ruled that the fighting did not meet the legal threshold for a civil war.
The court also rejected Ekpa’s argument that the conflict negated terrorist intent in his actions.
Nevertheless, it considered the circumstances surrounding the offences relevant to sentencing and reduced his prison term from six years to four years.
