Fellow Biafrans, it is not yet Uhuru! We still have a great deal of work ahead of us, and we must not lose sight of our ultimate objective. Make no mistake: It will remain #ShameOnFinland until our Prime Minister’s name is completely cleared of all allegations and the genocidal Nigerian regime ends its illegal occupation and annexation of our territory. The struggle for justice, freedom, and the full restoration of our sovereignty continues. Please read carefully. 👇🏿 The Court of Appeal's judgment in the case of terrorist offences Court of Appeal of Eastern Finland 15.10.2026 The Päijät-Häme District Court had Sentenced Lahti Resident Simon Ekpa to six years in Prison for participating in the activities of a terrorist group and public incitement to commit a crime with terrorist intent. He had also been convicted of two other crimes that are no longer under review in the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld Ekpa's conviction for the same terrorism offenses as the District Court, but commuted the sentence based on the circumstances of the act. According to the indictment accepted by the District Court, Ekpa acted from Lahti as the Supreme Commander of several armed groups operating in southeastern Nigeria. The aim of the groups has been to establish an independent state of Biafra in southeastern Nigeria. To achieve this goal, members of the groups had carried out terrorist attacks on Nigerian state police stations, government buildings, and military roadblocks. The Court of Appeal assessed the same evidence presented by the Prosecution concerning Ekpa's activities and drew the same conclusions from them as the District Court. Before the Court of Appeal, Ekpa argued and presented new evidence that a non-international armed conflict existed in southeastern Nigeria, and therefore his activities lacked terrorist intent. Instead of national terrorism offenses legislation, international humanitarian law should apply. As a result, the Court of Appeal had to examine the nature of the armed conflict in question, the armed organization of its parties and the intensity of the fighting. This had to be done by comparing the fulfillment of these criteria with similar assessments of the Balkan Wars at the turn of the Millennium by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. In the court's assessment of whether an armed conflict—namely, a civil war—existed within the state, the strongest arguments were supported by evidence indicating that Nigeria used heavy Weaponry in the battles, such as Assault tanks and combat helicopters. To some extent, the degree of organization of armed groups led by Ekpa also spoke in favor of the civil war. They had unified combat equipment and armament, which, however, consisted mainly of conventional Assault and machine guns. In its overall assessment, however, the Court of Appeal ruled that the intensity of the fighting did not reach the level required by the International Criminal Courts for civil wars. The Battles turned out to be relatively sparse individual attacks against police stations and road checkpoints. It could not be established that the armed forces led by Ekpa were capable of military operations requiring strategic planning, which would have resulted in prolonged fighting and continuity of operations as required by international case law. Another significant point weighing against the civil war classification was the fact that there had been no reports of significant civilian displacement out of the way of hostilities in the area The Court of Appeal upheld Ekpa's conviction for the same terrorism offenses as the District Court. However, it commuted the sentence imposed on Ekpa by the District Court under Chapter 6, Section 8(1), paragraph 4 of the Criminal Code by reducing his imprisonment to 4 years. This was based on the Court of Appeal's understanding that Ekpa's crimes had been committed under conditions, which closely resembled the circumstances leading to the application of grounds for exemption from liability, such as civil war, necessary defense, and a state of necessity. The matter has been resolved by Judges Aki Rasilainen and Antti Santaranta, and by Assistant Judge Johanna Puukka. The referee has been the Court of Appeal's referee Aino Finnilä. tuomioistuimet.fi/ajankohtai… #ShameOnFinland #FinlandFreeSimonEkpa @AgnesCallamard @Aki_Nummelin @AulaMK @BrookingsGlobal @CoE_RuleofLaw @FedericaMog @ForeignOfficeKE @FrankAmnesty @freedomhouse @HeikkaRR @HRHFoundation @IHRF_English @ihmisoikeus @ir_rkp @jihadwatchRS @kokoomus @liandersson @MaiKivela @MariPSRantanen @Mariam__Lambert @MikkonenKrista @minjakoskela @mtmalinen @NasimaRazmyar @Ofer_binshtok @OliviaSundberg1 @PaavoTeittinen @PACE_LegalHR @PaiviRasanen @PekkarinenElina @PES_PSE @PS_ekryhma @sirpa_rautio @SingoeiAKorir @teijamakkonenfi @veronikahonka @WalidPhares