KEY POINTS

• Kabiru Umar Sokoto has appealed his life imprisonment sentence over the 2011 Madalla church bombing, claiming wrongful conviction.
• The convict said delays in filing the appeal were caused by repeated prison transfers and the deaths of two lawyers handling his case.
• Sokoto’s family alleged his health has deteriorated in detention, while his appeal argues prosecutors failed to directly link him to terrorism offences.

Convicted Boko Haram member, Kabiru Umar Sokoto, has approached the Court of Appeal in Abuja to challenge the life sentence handed to him over the deadly Christmas Day bombing of St. Theresa Catholic Church in Madalla, Niger State.

Through his legal representatives, Don Akaegbu & Company, Sokoto filed an application dated May 13, 2026, seeking permission to file his appeal outside the legally approved timeframe.

The convicted terrorist was sentenced to life imprisonment on December 20, 2013, after a Federal High Court in Abuja found him guilty in connection with the 2011 church bombing that claimed at least 37 lives and left 57 others injured during Christmas celebrations.

The attack, one of the deadliest linked to Boko Haram insurgency at the time, sparked nationwide outrage and intensified concerns over terrorism and insecurity across Nigeria.

Convict Blames Delay on Incarceration, Death of Lawyers

In his application before the appellate court, Sokoto argued that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional but caused by circumstances beyond his control.

According to court documents, the convict said he had been transferred across multiple custodial facilities in different states since his imprisonment, making it difficult to maintain communication with legal counsel.

He further stated that two lawyers previously handling his appeal died before the process could be completed.

“The applicant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on December 20, 2013, and has remained continuously incarcerated since then,” the filing stated.

“The applicant was moved across several custodial centres across different states, making access to counsel extremely difficult.

“The applicant’s trial counsel initiated steps toward appeal but died before perfecting same. Another counsel engaged thereafter also passed away before prosecuting the appeal.”

The legal team also informed the court that although the convict’s former lawyer had requested compilation of court records for the appeal process, the case was never concluded.

The motion was filed because the constitutional 90-day window allowed for criminal appeals had already elapsed.

An affidavit attached to the application was deposed to by Lawal Suleiman, identified as Sokoto’s nephew.

Suleiman told the court that the family had difficulty locating the convict when they visited the Kirikiri Maximum Security Custodial Centre in Lagos in March 2026.

He claimed Sokoto’s health had significantly deteriorated during his years in detention and alleged that prison authorities were not providing adequate medical care.

According to the affidavit, the prolonged incarceration and harsh prison conditions have severely affected both his physical and psychological well-being.

“The applicant has aged considerably beyond his years and is in manifest need of medical attention,” Suleiman stated.

In the proposed appeal, Sokoto maintained that he was wrongly convicted and insisted the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal is based on 12 grounds, with the convict asking the Court of Appeal to overturn his conviction and acquit him of the charges brought against him by the Federal Government.

Part of his argument is that the trial judge allegedly relied on provisions of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) Act, a law focused on financial crimes, rather than terrorism-related legislation.

He also argued that prosecutors failed to establish any direct connection between him and specific terrorist activities allegedly carried out in Mabira, Sokoto State, between 2007 and 2012.

According to the notice of appeal, the prosecution did not present credible evidence directly linking him to acts of terrorism.

“The prosecution failed to adduce credible and direct evidence establishing that the appellant committed or facilitated any of the acts of terrorism particularised in the charge,” the appeal document stated.