Finnish Court Reduces Simon Ekpa’s Prison Sentence From Six Years To Four

A Finnish Court of Appeal has reduced the prison sentence of Biafra separatist figure 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, following appeals against the September 2025 judgment of the Päijät-Häme District Court, which sentenced Ekpa to six years in prison.

According to the Finnish judiciary, the appellate court upheld his convictions for participating in the activities of a terrorist group and publicly inciting people to commit crimes with terrorist intent. However, it reduced his sentence after considering the circumstances surrounding the offences.

Ekpa, 41, has been in custody since his arrest in Finland in November 2024. Prosecutors had also appealed the original judgment, seeking a harsher sentence.

The case concerned allegations that Ekpa operated from Lahti, Finland, as a leading figure directing several armed groups in southeastern Nigeria. According to the prosecution’s case accepted by the district court, the groups sought to establish an independent Biafran state and were linked to attacks on police stations, government buildings and military roadblocks.

During the appeal, Ekpa argued that a non-international armed conflict existed in southeastern Nigeria and that international humanitarian law, rather than Finland’s domestic terrorism legislation, should apply to his actions. He disputed the allegation that his activities were driven by terrorist intent.

The Court of Appeal examined the nature of the conflict, the organisation of the armed groups and the intensity of the fighting. It considered evidence that Nigerian government forces had deployed heavy weapons, including armoured vehicles and combat helicopters.

However, the court concluded that the fighting did not meet the legal threshold for classification as a civil war. It cited the intermittent nature of the attacks and insufficient evidence that the armed groups could sustain prolonged military operations.

Despite rejecting Ekpa’s argument that the circumstances removed terrorist intent from his actions, the court found that the conditions surrounding the offences resembled situations involving civil war, self-defence or necessity. These circumstances were considered relevant to reducing his punishment.

The judgment also noted that Ekpa had been convicted of two additional offences by the district court, but those convictions were not under review in the appeal.

The ruling represents a reduction in his prison term, not an acquittal. His terrorism-related convictions remain in place.