A Finnish appeal court has reduced the prison sentence of Biafra separatist Simon Ekpa from six years to four, while upholding his convictions for terrorism-related offences.
The court, in its ruling on Thursday, affirmed his convictions 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 November 2024, when Finnish authorities arrested him. He had appealed the September 2025 judgment of the Päijät-Häme District Court, which sentenced him to six years in prison. Prosecutors also appealed, seeking a stiffer punishment.
However, the appeal court reduced the sentence after considering circumstances surrounding the offences, which it said bore similarities to situations where grounds for exemption 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 and carried out attacks on police stations, government buildings and military roadblocks.
The appeal court reviewed the evidence and reached the same conclusions as the lower court regarding Ekpa’s activities.
During the appeal, Ekpa submitted 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 linked to the conflict and were not motivated by 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 the reported deployment of heavy weapons, including armoured vehicles and combat helicopters, by Nigerian government forces 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. It also rejected Ekpa’s argument that the conflict negated the terrorist intent behind his actions.
Although the court upheld his convictions, it considered the circumstances surrounding the conflict relevant to sentencing and reduced his prison term from six years to four.
