What’s at Stake for Simon Ekpa’s Donors As the IPOB Leader Faces Trial in Finland? 

The internet has been abuzz with debates and speculations since last week when the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) announced the arrest of Simon Ekpa, a leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). Following the arrest, he was subsequently imprisoned by the district court of Päijät-Häme for promoting terrorist propaganda against civilians and authorities in southeastern Nigeria on social media.

HumAngle reported how Ekpa, a Finland-based agitator rose to prominence in July 2021 after the arrest of IPOB founder Nnamdi Kanu. He later launched an online broadcast station to instigate violence on social media, campaigning for Biafra Nation. He is also notorious for sharing a series of misleading tweets.  

Ekpa forced a sit-at-home curfew on people in southeastern Nigeria; his armed group killed many residents who defied his order and also lynched many security agents in the past three years, making the region considered in 2012 the safest of Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones a no-go area for citizens of the country. 

Despite these atrocities, he has managed to secure significant financial support from sympathisers across the globe. These donations, amounting to thousands of dollars, were raised through various methods, including weekly Zoom fundraising campaigns that are live-streamed on Facebook, YouTube, and X. 

While Nigerian authorities seek Ekpa’s extradition to face terrorism charges, the absence of a bilateral extradition treaty between Nigeria and Finland complicates the process. 

What is a bilateral extradition treaty?

It is a written agreement between two countries stating the terms and conditions for the extradition of individuals from one country of arrest to another to face trial for an alleged crime committed in the requesting country.

Although Nigeria and Finland have maintained a bilateral relationship for over 60 years, the two countries do not have a bilateral extradition treaty. Finland’s decision to extradite Ekpa will likely depend on its broader diplomatic ties with Nigeria if it wishes. 

Earlier in August, during a visit by Nordic countries’ foreign ministers to Nigeria,  Elina Valtonen, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland, disclosed that “[we have] discussed [Ekpa’s issue] with the Nigerian authorities in full collaboration. And the entire process is within our judicial system.”

“In Finland, we operate very strictly by the rule of law, as we see that Nigeria is doing. It is not a political question but a question to the judicial system, and both our judicial systems collaborate on this matter,” Valtonen said.

As discussion on Ekpa’s possible extradition continues, a Senior Detective Superintendent at Finland’s National Bureau of Investigation, Mikko Laaksonen, told Punch Newspaper, a local publication, on Tuesday, Nov. 26, that the district court had set May 2025 as the deadline for prosecutors to present possible charges against Ekpa.

Meanwhile, multiple sources in Finland told HumAngle that many Nigerians supporting Ekpa’s agitation have kept mum since he was arrested as there are fears of possible arrest of supporters and donors.

What’s at stake for Simon Ekpa and his donors in Finland?

Finland has implemented the European Union’s Counter-Terrorism Directive, which requires member states to criminalise terrorism financing and related activities. 

According to Finnish law, individuals or organisations that provide financial support to terrorist activities can be held liable, as terrorism sponsorship is considered a severe offence, and those found guilty of financing or sponsoring terrorist activities can face severe penalties, including imprisonment and fines.

Chapter 34(a) of Finland’s Criminal Code, as amended in 2007, defines a range of terrorist offences and criminalises any person who, with terrorist intent and in a manner liable to cause serious harm to a State or an international organisation via mass media.

Section 3 of the Chapter says any person who directs a terrorist group is liable to imprisonment for at least two or twelve years.  Also, Section 4 of Chapter 34(a) of the Finnish Criminal Code talks about the promotion of the activity of a terrorist group, which Ekpa has been accused of doing social media for the past three years.

It says any person who promotes terror activities, supplies or seeks to supply a terrorist group with explosives, weapons, ammunition or substances or equipment intended for the preparation of terror activities shall be sentenced to imprisonment for at least four months and at most eight years.

Section 5 of the Chapter also discusses what is at stake for those financing terrorism. It says a person who directly or indirectly provides or collects funds to finance or is aware that these shall finance murder, homicide, killing, aggravated assault, deprivation of liberty, aggravated deprivation of freedom, and many more shall be sentenced for the financing of terrorism to imprisonment for at least four months and at most eight years. 

Additionally, Finnish law provides for the freezing and confiscating of assets linked to terrorism financing.

Legal experts weigh in

Reacting to Ekpa’s arrests and the fate of his donors in Finland, Gafar Okanlawon, a lawyer and human rights advocate, argued that the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over the following crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes against aggression.

“Today, IPOB is a terrorist group in Nigeria,” he said. “To wit, anyone who is found championing financial support or contributions can be charged with a treasonable felony, and the punishment under Nigerian law is capital punishment. However, as IPOB is not designated a terrorist group under Finnish Law, it is doubtful if the Finnish court can assume jurisdiction for alleged offences committed by Ekpa against the Nigerian State.”

“Nonetheless, he can be punished if it’s been proven that he is guilty of the alleged offences under Finnish law. Aside from that, it’s important to state that those who are contributing money or donating money for the operations of IPOB can also be prosecuted.”

Another lawyer, Mubin Anamo, told HumAngle that the law is clear on the implications of supporting terrorism activities in any part of the world. 

“People who are donating are also participating in terrorism because they are using their funds to promote terrorism. While I am not against his ethnic demands, Simon Ekpa and his sponsors should be dealt with for fuelling attacks in the South East. You cannot be killing the people you say you want to liberate. As for Simon Ekpa and his donors, their cups are full, and they should just face the music,” the lawyer said.

What lies ahead?

While Finland cooperates closely with international partners to combat terrorism and terrorism financing, the country has yet to speak on how Ekpa’s donors will be impacted. However, the country’s stringent counter-terrorism laws suggest they, too, could face significant legal challenges in the coming months.

For Simon Ekpa and his supporters, the stakes could not be higher.

As the trial looms, the focus will be on how Finland balances its legal obligations, diplomatic ties with Nigeria, and commitment to combating terrorism.