Simon Ekpa’s terrorism sentence in Finland has been reduced from six years to four after the Court of Appeal upheld his convictions for participating in a terrorist organisation and publicly inciting crimes for terrorist purposes.
The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling issued by the Päijät-Häme District Court last year, finding Ekpa guilty of both offences. However, it reduced his prison sentence after considering the circumstances surrounding his activities and the situation in southeastern Nigeria, where his campaign for an independent Biafran state was focused.
Ekpa, 41, moved from Nigeria to Finland in 2007 and is a long-term resident of Lahti. He previously served on the city’s council as a representative of the National Coalition Party.
The case centred on Ekpa’s activities linked to the movement seeking to restore Biafra, a region in southeastern Nigeria that briefly existed as an independent state in the late 1960s. According to the district court’s findings, Ekpa used his substantial social media following to increase tensions in the region between August 2021 and November 2024.
The district court concluded that his actions amounted to participation in a terrorist organisation and public incitement to commit crimes for terrorist purposes. Ekpa challenged the verdict, arguing that the political unrest in Biafra meant his activities were not motivated by terrorist intent.
The Court of Appeal maintained the guilty verdicts but took a different view of the circumstances relevant to sentencing. It noted that the situation in the Biafra region closely resembled a civil war, although it did not meet the legal definition of one. The court considered this distinction when deciding to reduce the sentence from six years to four.
The prosecution had also appealed the district court’s original decision, arguing that the six-year sentence was too lenient given the seriousness of the offences. The appeal court’s decision therefore addressed challenges from both Ekpa and the prosecution, although the convictions remained in place.
The ruling is not yet final and may still be appealed to a higher court.
