A panel of three judges at the East Finland Court of Appeal has reduced Biafra agitator Simon Ekpa’s prison sentence from six years to four years after weighing his argument that the circumstances surrounding his terrorism offences warranted exemption from criminal liability.

The appellate court on Thursday upheld his terrorism convictions but commuted his sentence after finding that the circumstances of his crimes justified a more lenient punishment.

A Finnish district court had last year sentenced Mr Ekpa to six years’ imprisonment for terrorism and tax fraud. 

He appealed the ruling, arguing that a civil war was taking place in Nigeria’s South-East, prompting him to coordinate the defence of Biafra separatists as the supreme commander of several armed groups.

Mr Ekpa argued that he coordinated the groups from Lahti, Finland, to secure Biafra’s secession from Nigeria in response to violent attacks in the region. 

He maintained that his actions were not motivated by terrorism and urged the appellate court to assess his case under international humanitarian law rather than Finland’s terrorism legislation.

Mr Ekpa tendered evidence that Nigerian security forces used heavy weapons, including combat helicopters, in the region. But the appellate court found that the level of fighting did not meet the legal threshold for a civil war.

The court weighed his argument against the Balkan Wars at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and determined that the level of fighting did not meet thresholds for civil wars.

It found insufficient evidence that Mr Ekpa’s groups had the military might to sustain prolonged, strategically planned operations on a large scale consistent with the international standards for a civil war.

Another issue that throttled Mr Ekpa’s argument was the lack of evidence and reports of civilian displacement as often seen in civil wars.

The East Finland Court of Appeal consequently upheld the terrorism charges of the Päijät-Häme District Court against Mr Ekpa.

The appellate court, however, reduced his sentence from six to four years, finding that the circumstances of his crimes resembled situations, such as civil war or self-defence, that could serve as grounds for exemption from criminal liability.