Timeframe: 2023 – September 2025
Location: Lahti District Court, Helsinki, Abuja
Key Actors: Simon Ekpa, Finnish National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), Finnish prosecutors, Nigerian Ministry of
Justice
Epigraph:
“The suspect is believed to have raised significant sums without
fulfilling the legal requirements for charitable fundraising.”
— Finnish National Bureau of Investigation press release, 12 November
2024 [1].
The Camera Lens
Finnish investigators wheeled box files into the Lahti courthouse. Bank statements, cryptocurrency ledgers, and money-transfer receipts spilled across the prosecution table. The State accused Simon Ekpa of aggravated tax fraud and illegal fundraising—charges that Nigeria hailed as vindication. Ekpa’s lawyers countered that “revolutionary taxes” were political donations. The trial became a proxy war over whether diaspora funding is activism or crime.
The NBI alleged that Ekpa raised more than €2 million via crowd-funding campaigns marketed as humanitarian relief for the South East but failed to register as a charity or declare the income for taxation [1]. Prosecutors presented evidence of transfers routed through U.S. fintech platforms into Finnish accounts before being disbursed to associates.
The Helsinki Times highlighted the legal ambiguity: Finnish law criminalizes unregistered public fundraising, even for political causes [2]. Ekpa’s defense argued the funds were voluntary political donations protected by free-expression rights. Nigerian officials celebrated the charges online, but legal scholars cautioned that conviction would hinge on technical compliance, not Abuja’s terror narrative.
On 28 September 2025, the Lahti District Court sentenced Ekpa to six years’ imprisonment and ordered restitution, freezing dozens of accounts flagged by international cooperation requests [3]. He filed an appeal, asserting selective prosecution influenced by Nigerian diplomacy. Regardless of the appeal’s outcome, the case established that Western legal systems can criminalize diaspora fundraising if it skirts charity regulations.
The Finland case reframed “revolutionary taxes” as taxable income. It also illustrated how Abuja leverages international legal networks to choke diaspora funding streams. Whether one calls it justice or lawfare depends on which side of the movement you stand.