Finnish Appeal Court Cuts Simon Ekpa’s Prison Sentence From Six Years to Four

A Finnish Court of Appeal has reduced the prison sentence of Nigerian-born Biafra separatist Simon Ekpa from six years to four years while upholding his convictions for terrorism-related offences.

The court delivered its ruling on Thursday, October 15, 2026, affirming the decision of the Päijät-Häme District Court, which found Ekpa guilty of participating in the activities of a terrorist group and publicly inciting people to commit crimes with terrorist intent.

However, the appeal court reduced his sentence after considering the circumstances surrounding the offences, including arguments about the nature of the conflict in south-eastern Nigeria. The ruling does not overturn his convictions.

Ekpa, 41, has been in Finnish custody since his arrest in November 2024. He was sentenced to six years in prison in September 2025, following a case linked to his alleged activities in support of establishing an independent Biafran state in south-eastern Nigeria.

According to the Finnish court, Ekpa operated from the city of Lahti as the alleged supreme commander of several armed groups in Nigeria’s south-east. Prosecutors linked those groups to attacks on police stations, government buildings and military checkpoints.

The prosecution argued that Ekpa used his substantial social media following to encourage violence in the region between August 2021 and November 2024. Ekpa challenged the conviction and argued that his activities took place within the context of an armed conflict and should therefore be assessed under international humanitarian law rather than Finland’s domestic terrorism legislation.

The appeal court examined the nature and intensity of the violence, the organisation of the armed groups and evidence of their capacity to sustain military operations. It acknowledged evidence that Nigerian government forces had deployed heavy weapons, including armoured vehicles and combat helicopters, and that some armed groups possessed organised structures and weapons.

Nevertheless, the judges concluded that the fighting did not reach the legal threshold required to classify it as a civil war under the relevant international legal standards. The court cited the relatively sporadic nature of attacks and insufficient evidence of sustained military operations, among other considerations.

Although the court upheld the terrorism-related convictions, it ruled that the circumstances surrounding the offences closely resembled situations in which grounds such as civil war, self-defence or necessity could be relevant to criminal liability. It considered these circumstances when reducing the sentence from six years to four.

Prosecutors had also appealed the original ruling, arguing that the six-year term was insufficient for the seriousness of the offences. The appeal court nevertheless decided to reduce the sentence.

The judgment also noted that Ekpa had been convicted of two additional offences by the district court, but those convictions were no longer under review in this appeal. The court’s ruling is not yet final and may be appealed to a higher court.

The decision is likely to attract attention in Nigeria, particularly in the south-east, where the Biafra separatist campaign and violence associated with armed groups have remained deeply contentious. It also highlights the legal complexities involved when alleged criminal activities carried out from abroad are connected to political and security conflicts in another country.

The Finnish court’s ruling changes the length of Ekpa’s prison term but leaves the central terrorism-related convictions intact.