BREAKING: 12 Years After Madalla Bombing Conviction, Court Gives Kabiru Sokoto 21 Days To Appeal Life Sentence | Sahara Reporters

The decision was contained in an enrolled order of the appellate court dated August 20, 2026, in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/PRE/ROA/CR/619M1/2026, a copy of the judgement was seen by SaharaReporters.

Twelve years after the Federal High Court in Abuja convicted and sentenced Kabiru Umar, popularly known as Kabiru Sokoto, the Court of Appeal has granted him a fresh 21-day window to formally pursue an appeal against the judgment.

On December 20, 2013, Justice Adeniyi Ademola of the Federal High Court in Abuja sentenced Kabiru Sokoto to life imprisonment for his role in the 2011 Christmas Day bombing of St. Theresa’s Catholic Church in Madalla, Niger State, which killed at least 37 people.

The Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division, granted an application by Kabiru Sokoto seeking an extension of time to appeal the judgment delivered by the Federal High Court on December 20, 2013.

The decision was contained in an enrolled order of the appellate court dated August 20, 2026, in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/PRE/ROA/CR/619M1/2026, a copy of the judgement was seen by SaharaReporters.

The three-member panel, comprising Justices Muhammed Danjuma, Ntong F. Ntong and Ele Ojo Enenche, granted the application filed on May 13, 2026, but struck out two other prayers after they were withdrawn.

In his application dated May 13, 2026, the convict attributed the delay in filing the appeal to his prolonged incarceration, repeated transfers between custodial facilities, and the deaths of two lawyers who had previously handled the case.

Meanwhile, the enrolled order was signed by Josephine J. Ekperobe, Deputy Chief Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division.

The court specifically extended the time within which Kabiru Sokoto could appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CR/38/2013.

It further directed that the appellant/applicant be given 21 days to file his Notice and Grounds of Appeal.

The order stated: “The application filed on 13/05/2026 is hereby granted in terms of prayers 1 and 3. Prayers 2 and 4 having been withdrawn are struck out.”

The court subsequently ordered: “Time is hereby extended to the Appellant/Applicant to appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, delivered on 20th December, 2013 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CR/38/2013.”

It added: “The Appellant/Applicant is granted 21 days to file his Notice and Grounds of Appeal in terms of exhibit A attached to this application alongside the Order of this Court at the registry of the Lower Court.”

The ruling effectively gives Kabiru Sokoto another opportunity to place his challenge to the 2013 judgment before the appellate court, more than a decade after the original decision.

However, the order does not overturn his conviction, determine the merits of his proposed appeal or pronounce him innocent of the offences for which he was convicted.

Rather, the Court of Appeal’s decision is procedural, dealing with the time within which he can initiate the appeal and directing him to file the necessary Notice and Grounds of Appeal within 21 days.

Kabiru Sokoto was linked to terrorism-related offences and the broader investigation surrounding the December 2011 bombing of St. Theresa’s Catholic Church in Madalla, Niger State.

The bombing, which occurred on Christmas Day in 2011, was one of the deadliest attacks in Nigeria at the time and was widely associated with Boko Haram.

His legal team, however, has stressed that the specific charges upon which he was tried and convicted did not accuse him of physically carrying out or masterminding the Madalla church bombing.

In a statement issued by his lawyer, Don C. Akaegbu, and reported in May 2026, the defence said Kabiru Sokoto had formally initiated an appeal against the Federal High Court judgment following a review of the proceedings and judgment.

The lawyer said the delay in commencing the appeal was caused by circumstances beyond his client’s control.

The statement said: “We act as Counsel to Mr. Kabiru Umar (also known as Kabiru Sokoto), who was convicted and sentenced by the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division, on the 20th day of December, 2013.

“We wish to respectfully inform the public that our client has now formally initiated an appeal against the said judgment before the Court of Appeal, the delay in so doing occasioned by circumstances beyond his control, notwithstanding.”

According to the defence, an application for extension of time had also been filed because of the delay in commencing the appellate process.

The defence has also sought to distinguish between being directly responsible for the Madalla bombing and the allegation contained in the charge for which Kabiru Sokoto was convicted.

In its clarification, the legal team said: “It is important, in the interest of accuracy and fairness, to clarify that: The charges upon which our client was tried and convicted did not allege that he carried out or masterminded the bombing of St. Theresa’s Catholic Church, Madalla. Rather, the relevant count alleged that he had information about the incident and failed to disclose the same to law enforcement authorities.”

The lawyers argued that the distinction was legally significant and central to the proposed appeal.

“The distinction between direct participation and alleged prior knowledge is significant in law and forms a central issue in the pending appeal,” the defence said.

The legal team also said the appeal would raise questions concerning the evidence relied upon by the trial court in reaching its decision and the manner in which the defence presented by Kabiru Sokoto was evaluated.

The latest proceedings before the Court of Appeal arose from Umar’s Motion on Notice seeking four principal orders.

The first was an order extending the time within which he could seek leave to appeal against the Federal High Court judgment delivered on December 20, 2013.

The second was an order granting him leave to appeal against the judgment.

The third sought an extension of time within which he could file his Notice of Appeal.

The fourth asked the appellate court to deem the Notice of Appeal already filed as properly filed and served.

Following consideration of the application and the affidavit deposed to by Lawal Suleiman, the court granted the first and third prayers.

The second and fourth prayers were withdrawn by the applicant and consequently struck out.

The ruling means the immediate task for Kabiru Sokoto’s legal team is to comply with the court’s directive by filing his Notice and Grounds of Appeal within the 21-day period granted by the appellate court.

The applicant was represented during the proceedings by E.O. Bamidele, who held the brief of Don C. Akaegbu.

The Federal Republic of Nigeria, the respondent, was represented by D.E. Kasuwe, Assistant Director at the Federal Ministry of Justice, with M.U. Ossi, Esq.

The significance of the Court of Appeal order lies largely in the fact that Kabiru Sokoto can now proceed with an appeal that concerns a judgment delivered in 2013.

Ordinarily, appeals are subject to prescribed statutory timelines. A party seeking to appeal outside the applicable period must therefore obtain the necessary extension from the court.

That was the immediate issue before the Court of Appeal in the latest proceedings.

By granting prayers one and three, the appellate court has cleared the procedural hurdle that had stood in the way of Umar’s attempt to challenge the 2013 judgment.

The court has not, however, ruled on the substantive grounds on which Kabiru Sokoto intends to challenge the conviction.

Those issues will arise if and when the appeal is properly filed and subsequently heard.

The 21-day period granted by the court therefore represents the next critical stage in the case.

Within that period, he is expected to file his Notice and Grounds of Appeal in accordance with the terms contained in the court’s order and the relevant exhibit attached to his application.

The eventual appeal could bring under scrutiny the evidence relied upon by the Federal High Court, the interpretation of the charges against Kabiru Sokoto and the manner in which his defence was evaluated during the original proceedings.