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.
In a ruling on Thursday, the appeal court upheld the convictions imposed by the Päijät-Häme District Court for participating in the activities of a terrorist group and publicly inciting people to commit crimes with terrorist intent.
Ekpa, 41, has been in custody since his arrest by Finnish law enforcement authorities in November 2024.
He had appealed the September 2025 judgment that sentenced him to six years in prison. Prosecutors also challenged the ruling, seeking a longer sentence.
Why the Court Reduced Ekpa’s Sentence
The appeal court reduced Ekpa’s sentence after finding that the circumstances surrounding his offences closely resembled situations in which grounds for exemption from criminal liability, including civil war, self-defence and necessity, could apply.
However, the court did not overturn his convictions or accept his argument that the conflict in south-eastern Nigeria removed terrorist intent from his actions.
According to the court’s statement, the district court had accepted the prosecution’s case 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 carrying out attacks on police stations, government buildings and military roadblocks in pursuit of that objective.
The appeal court said it assessed the same evidence presented by prosecutors and reached the same conclusions as the district court regarding Ekpa’s activities.
Ekpa’s Argument Over the Conflict in South-East Nigeria
During the appeal, Ekpa introduced new evidence to support his argument that an internal armed conflict was taking place in south-eastern Nigeria.
He argued that international humanitarian law, rather than Finland’s national terrorism laws, should govern his case because his activities 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 legal assessments of the Balkan wars by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
It found that evidence of Nigerian government forces using heavy weapons, including armoured vehicles and combat helicopters, supported the argument that an internal armed conflict existed.
However, the court ruled that the fighting did not meet the legal threshold for a civil war.
Convictions Remain Despite Reduced Sentence
Although the appeal court rejected Ekpa’s argument that the conflict removed terrorist intent from his actions, it considered the circumstances relevant to sentencing.
The court consequently reduced his prison term from six years to four years while leaving his convictions intact.
The ruling therefore changes the length of Ekpa’s sentence but does not overturn the district court’s findings on the terrorism-related offences.
