Finnish Appeal Court Reduces Simon Ekpa’s Jail Term to Four Years

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 its judgment delivered on Thursday, the court upheld Ekpa’s conviction for participating in the activities of a terrorist group and publicly inciting people to commit crimes with terrorist intent.

However, the court reduced his sentence after considering circumstances surrounding the offences that it said bore similarities to situations that could justify exemption from criminal liability, including civil war, self-defence and necessity.

Ekpa, 41, has been in custody since his arrest in Finland in November 2024. 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 harsher punishment.

According to the appeal court, prosecutors had argued that Ekpa operated from Lahti, 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 carrying out attacks on police stations, government buildings and military roadblocks.

The appeal court said it reviewed the evidence presented by the prosecution and reached the same conclusions as the district court regarding Ekpa’s activities. During the appeal, however, Ekpa presented additional evidence to support his argument that a non-international armed conflict existed in south-eastern Nigeria.

He argued that international humanitarian law, rather than Finnish national terrorism laws, should apply to his activities, which he said 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, comparing the evidence with assessments of the Balkan wars by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. It found that the reported use of heavy weapons by Nigerian government forces, including armoured vehicles and combat helicopters, supported the argument that an internal armed conflict existed.

However, the court ruled that the intensity of the fighting did not meet the threshold required under international case law to classify the situation as a civil war. It cited evidence of largely isolated attacks on police stations and road checkpoints, insufficient evidence that the groups could sustain prolonged military operations, and the absence of reports of significant civilian displacement from affected areas.

Although the court rejected Ekpa’s argument that the conflict removed terrorist intent from his actions, it considered the circumstances relevant to sentencing. It therefore reduced his prison term under Chapter 6, Section 8(1), paragraph 4 of Finland’s Criminal Code while maintaining the two terrorism-related convictions.

The court also noted that Ekpa had been convicted of two other crimes by the district court, but those convictions were no longer under review in the appeal. The case was decided by Judges Aki Rasilainen and Antti Santaranta, alongside Assistant Judge Johanna Puukka.