The appeal hearing of Simon Ekpa has entered its second week

By Naomi Litvin

On 21 November 2024, Simon Njoku Ekpa was arrested in Lahti, Finland, on charges related to terrorism and incitement. He has remained in custody since his arrest.

The arrest followed sustained diplomatic engagement by the Nigerian government with Finnish authorities, during which concerns were raised regarding Ekpa’s online activities, which Nigerian officials linked to violence and instability in southeastern Nigeria. According to reporting and official statements, the issue was discussed in high-level diplomatic exchanges between the two countries.

On 1 September 2025, the Päijät-Häme District Court convicted Simon Ekpa of terrorism-related offences and aggravated tax fraud and sentenced him to six years in prison. The judgment was not final and remained subject to appeal before the Finnish Court of Appeal.

The Nigerian government openly acknowledged that it had exerted sustained diplomatic pressure on Finland to take action regarding Ekpa. 

Supporters of Ekpa view this acknowledgment as evidence that Finland’s actions were influenced by Nigerian political interests rather than being entirely independent. In this interpretation, Finland is alleged to have effectively functioned as a proxy of Nigeria in the case.

The significance of this admission is strongly emphasized by Ekpa's supporters. They argue that Nigeria's public acknowledgment of diplomatic pressure raises questions about the independence of the prosecution and whether political considerations may have influence the broader handling of the case.

The Nigerian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through its spokesperson Kimiebi Imomotimi Ebienfa, also stated that Ekpa was acting on behalf of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). This characterization is disputed by supporters of BRGIE, who argue that while BRGIE advocates for the release of Biafran Supreme Leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, it is organizationally separate from IPOB.

This case illustrates the complex intersection of criminal law, political conflict, and digital communication. It also highlights the importance of context when interpreting online speech across different languages, audiences, and political environments. Questions of intent, specificity, and real-world risk remain central to the legal analysis.

Finnish courts typically assess three core elements when determining whether speech constitutes criminal incitement: intent, concreteness, and real-world risk. These factors are evaluated together rather than in isolation.

Although political speech is broadly protected under Finnish law, legal limits apply where speech is considered to encourage, facilitate, or support violence. Abstract political advocacy is generally protected, while targeted or actionable incitement may fall within the scope of criminal liability.

Following the conviction, Ekpa’s legal team filed a formal notice of appeal and preparations began for proceedings before the Finnish Court of Appeal.

Supporters of Ekpa argue that the situation facing Biafrans in southeastern Nigeria should be considered when interpreting his statements and intent. His legal team is expected to raise arguments relating to authorship of communications, evidentiary chain-of-custody issues, expert interpretation of digital material, and questions of procedural fairness.

The Biafra movement consists of multiple organizations and factions with differing leadership structures and political approaches. 

Following Ekpa’s arrest, internal divisions became more visible, and competing groups have claimed varying degrees of legitimacy. Among them, the United States of Biafra (USB) has been particularly controversial and has contributed to public confusion regarding factional alignment.

Finnish reporting has indicated that an appeal hearing is unlikely to take place before spring 2026, although no official date has been publicly confirmed at this time.

Recent online discussions suggest that some members of USB may travel to Helsinki to attend the appeal hearing. In my view, this would be counterproductive. Similar attendance at earlier proceedings reportedly drew attention away from the legal issues before the court. If the objective is to support the appeal process, focus is best placed on the legal arguments presented by counsel rather than public displays of factional disagreement.