The sentencing of Nnamdi Kanu to life imprisonment marks a momentous national development, and the Ijaw Diaspora Council observes it with a mix of solemnity and concern. On one hand, the court is perceived to have upheld the rule of law despite that some of the evidence the relevant witnesses were not available for cross-examination:
However, Justice Omotosho found Kanu guilty on multiple counts, including incitement, the enforcement of sit-at-home orders, and the promotion of violence, concluding that these actions amounted to terrorism. On the other hand, some observers argue that the decision to impose a life sentence rather than the death penalty reflects judicial restraint, citing both global shifts away from capital punishment and a moral appeal to mercy.
To fully grasp the intricacies of the position taken by IDC, it is essential to understand the nature of the charges and to undertake a comparative assessment involving Major Isaac Adaka Boro.
Nigeria, as a sovereign state, retains the authority to enact any law that serves its legitimate national interests, provided such laws remain consistent with international legal standards.
The facts of the case indicate that Nigeria proscribed IPOB. It was alleged that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu leads IPOB; however, without access to the complete record, it remains unclear whether his leadership role occurred before or after the proscription.
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was abducted on foreign soil in Kenya, an act that raised significant questions of international legality. He was subsequently charged under sections 1 and 16 of the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act of 2013, as well as section 47 of the Criminal Code Act of 2004, among other provisions. The seven charges brought against him largely centered on allegations of incitement and the use or concealment of a radio transmitter.
While it is not clear whether an appeal might expose him to the possibility of a death sentence at the appellate level, the specific grounds of any such appeal also remain uncertain at this stage.
A further reasonable comparison concerns the persistent and devastating violence that has occurred in Northern Nigeria before and after Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s detention. Despite repeated incidents involving mass killings, destruction of property, acts of terror, abductions, and the murder of soldiers and schoolchildren, none of which were perpetrated or orchestrated by Kanu, various individuals operating within governmental or protected structures have been publicly accused of encouraging or enabling acts of terrorism. Yet these persons remain within Nigeria untouched, employing incendiary rhetoric and allegedly sponsoring actual terrorism, as publicly available data suggests.
A comparative point that resonates deeply is the 1966 death sentence imposed on Major Isaac Adaka Boro for treason by the government of Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi. Boro was convicted for attempting to secede a portion of the Federal Republic of Nigeria under the banner of the Niger Delta Volunteer Force, an act formally declared illegal and punishable by death. Prior to this, Lt. Col. Emeka Ojukwu, leveraging federal power, had overrun Boro’s forces and arrested him for treason. Boro was, however, later released by the Yakubu Gowon administration following the overthrow of the Ironsi government on 29 July 1966.
In IDC view, while the state is entitled to and has made a legal pronouncement, this moment does not necessarily mark the end of the matter politically, socially, or in the broader arena of public legitimacy and interest of peace in Nigeria.
This matter represents a grave national concern rooted perceived political victimization.
The judgement delivered in the case of Nnamdi Kanu is manifestly inequitable in the current context of Nigeria and as such unjust; and unmistakably tainted with political vendetta, deployed to score cheap points against the broader and legitimate struggle for self-determination, a right which is internationally recognized.
This struggle extends far beyond the Igbo people; it encompasses other marginalized groups, particularly the minorities of the Niger Delta and the Middle Belt, who have consistently advocated for self-governance through the practice of a True Fiscal Federal system of government in which the devolution of powers between the Federal Government and the federating units is clearly delineated, and in which resource ownership and control reside with the constituent units.
The judgement against Kanu, astonishingly delivered in this twenty-first century, evokes historical precedents of oppressive rulings against freedom advocates.
History brings to our remembrance Mohandas Gandhi, Civil Rights icon Martin Luther King Jr., revolutionary Major Isaac Adaka Boro, the indomitable Nelson Mandela, and environmentalist Ken Saro-Wiwa, all of blessed memory.
Each of these figures endured egregious injustice wrapped in the veneer of legality, all because of their unrelenting political convictions and their refusal to submit to entrenched dysfunctional systems. Nigeria is, once again, merely postponing the “evil day” rather than confronting its structural crisis with courage and clarity.
True Federalism remains the most effective, viable, and inclusive system for managing Nigeria’s increasingly fragile and tension-filled landscape. The practice of True Fiscal Federalism is essential for extinguishing the flames of separatist agitations across the country and offers the most reliable framework for defeating the hydra-headed menace known as “terrorism” and its twin scourge, “banditry.”
The over-centralization of the nation’s security architecture is a fundamental aberration in a country that claims to practice federalism. A decentralized governmental system, with powers clearly devolved to federating units and resource control situated within constituent communities, would dramatically reduce the widespread discontent and anger that are steadily eroding the fabric of national peace and security. Importantly appointments to critical and essential departments, such as Defence, are often driven by political considerations rather than by the expertise and experience of the individuals selected to occupy those positions.
It is particularly disheartening that, amid these contradictions and distortions, the Igbo nation appears divided against itself for political, self-serving, and pecuniary reasons. Such internal fragmentation weakens the capacity of the Ndigbo to mount a unified response to systemic marginalization and the assault on their collective dignity. If a political solution is not urgently pursued in Kanu’s case, the South-East risks descending into an increasingly volatile security situation with far-reaching national consequences. The IDC urges political stakeholders to take this reality seriously and to consider it as they work toward unifying Nigeria under a genuine spirit of true federalism.
Kanu’s matter, and by extension the broader Igbo Nation agitation, must not be addressed in isolation. The deep-seated political, tribal, ethnic, and religious cleavages undermining the Nigerian State, coupled with the glaring deficit of equity and justice in national administration, must be confronted now.
Pretending that all is well is self-delusion. As my revered master and mentor, Chief Harold Dappa Biriye, often reminded us, “Self-deceit is the most dangerous deceit.”
The judgment will intensify political emotions in the South-East. For many in the Igbo community, Kanu has been more than a separatist leader. He has symbolized alienation, perceived historical injustice, and the yearning for self-determination.
His imprisonment may galvanize supporters, potentially reigniting calls for autonomy or constitutional reform. Although IPOB and its supporters have consistently declared their commitment to peaceful self-determination and the exposure of minority mistreatment, the aftermath of the sentencing may not yield uniform responses. There is a real possibility of internal splintering: some factions may intensify nonviolent political advocacy, while more radical elements could gravitate toward confrontational or even violent strategies of self-defence, interpreting the imprisonment as a deliberate attempt by the state to silence their movement.
Increased surveillance, security operations, and a heavier presence of the state in the South-East might be seen in the coming days. The government may feel emboldened to clamp down harder on separatist activities, while supporters might respond with protests, civil disobedience in the form of sit-at-home directives, or underground organizing. Paradoxically, this verdict pushes the issue into the diplomatic or constitutional arena. International actors, civil society, and Igbo leaders may intensify calls for a negotiated political solution through a referendum or constitutionally backed self-determination process, though the court itself reaffirmed that self-determination “not done according to the constitution” is illegal.
Ongoing or renewed sit-at-home orders or instability could further damage the South-East’s economy, deter investment, and worsen business conditions. At the same time, a sense of grievance may deepen.
The people should not allow the sentence to provoke irrational reactions. It’s understandable that this is painful, but violence could lead to further suffering and destabilization. Kanu’s legal team has already indicated they will appeal. The Igbo community should rally around legal challenges, including through domestic and international human rights mechanisms, rather than defaulting to extra-legal resistance. Ndigbo should leverage the judgment to build broader political and civil society coalitions both within Nigeria and in the diaspora to press for systemic reforms, constitutional dialogue, and peaceful mechanisms for self-determination.
Rather than placing all hope on individual leaders, it is critical to strengthen civic institutions, grassroots organizations, and political parties within the Igbo region.
This will help ensure that any future push for self-determination or reform is grounded in democratic legitimacy, not just charismatic leadership.
Encourage open channels for dialogue with the federal government. Simultaneously, the international community should be engaged to legitimize political processes. While pushing for justice, the Igbo people should also work toward reconciliation both inter-ethnic and with the Nigerian state to prevent renewed cycles of conflict. The wounds of the civil war and decades of marginalization are still fresh; healing these will be essential for long-term peace.
As the Ijaw Diaspora Council, we recognize that events unfolding in the South-East have implications for all of Nigeria’s ethnic and regional communities. We urge all parties, the government, IPOB, civic leaders, and the international community to focus on a just, peaceful, and constitutional resolution. The rule of law must be upheld, but so must the dignity, rights, and legitimate grievances of Ndigbo be addressed in a way that leads to lasting stability, not further division.
The critical challenge before the present administration of “EMILOKAN” is to urgently initiate a framework for convening a National Conference, irrespective of the nomenclature. Nigeria must address the foundational issues threatening its peace, security, unity, and developmental progress. The so-called Nigerian project, if it exists at all, is increasingly dysfunctional. A durable solution to the lingering crisis of nation-building is the redefinition of the Nigerian State in both form and purpose.
In this regard, the recent admonition of the erudite legal luminary, Barrister Olisa Agbakoba, SAN, bears repeating. Speaking on national media platforms, including Channels Television, he stated, and I quote: “Nothing has changed. I simply felt compelled to repeat what I have been saying. Given our structure and diversity, federalism remains the only workable model. For a nation composed of diverse ethnicities, the only viable arrangement is one that grants regional groups their autonomy within the Nigerian federal system. Without such an arrangement, progress will remain elusive. For twenty-five years, the National Assembly has engaged in constitutional amendments, yet the impact remains negligible. Even this year alone, more than eighty amendments have been passed, but they have not produced the desired effect.”
Our counsel to President Tinubu’s administration is not only to hear the rising voices of outrage and anguish from millions of Nigerians regarding this judgement but also to act with presidential foresight to restore the severely diminished faith and confidence of the public in his proclaimed democratic government. May we never emulate the mole rat that is unable to hear even the loudest cry of danger.
Signed:
Professor Mondy Selle Gold,
Chairman, Ijaw Diaspora Council, BOD
Professor Edward Agbai,
Secretary, Ijaw Diaspora Council BOD
Professor Emmauel Tam Ezekiel-Hart,
Chief Legal Adviser, Ijaw Diaspora Council
