By Chris Ifeanyi Ezeh — Opinion | Special to EuroAfrica News & Features:
Nigeria has found itself at an uncomfortable crossroads, one where violence is forgiven, but political persuasion is punished with unyielding force. Former insurgents who once razed villages, ambushed soldiers, and abducted schoolchildren are ushered back into society under the label of “repentant terrorists.” They receive rehabilitation, vocational support, and in some cases, a pathway into the country’s security architecture. Yet Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), remains locked away—held under conditions that raise more questions than answers. His long detention, marred by legal irregularities and extraordinary rendition, has become a symbol of Nigeria’s selective approach to justice.
Earlier this week, a court in Abuja delivered what many critics have called a “kangaroo-style” judgment: the maximum penalty available—life imprisonment, or even a death sentence. The decision has deepened concerns about fairness and governance in a country still struggling to address longstanding political grievances.
Nigeria’s treatment of Kanu is not merely a judicial matter; it is a national dilemma. Why is the state quicker to negotiate with armed extremists than with someone whose influence flows mainly through speech? Why is it easier to forgive those who shed blood than those who ask uncomfortable political questions?
Around the World, Dialogue Has Ended Conflicts — Not Detention
Nigeria insists that opening discussions with agitators signals weakness. History shows the exact opposite.
The Good Friday Agreement – Northern Ireland
The IRA waged a violent campaign for decades, leaving thousands dead. Britain, instead of relying solely on military force, eventually signed the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. The peace it produced has lasted a generation.
Colombia’s FARC Peace Accord
After half a century of guerrilla warfare, Colombia sat down with rebels it had long called terrorists. The resulting peace deal disarmed combatants and ushered them into mainstream politics.
South Africa — Negotiating With Mandela
Nelson Mandela was once branded a terrorist by the apartheid state. But when the regime finally accepted that prison could not silence an idea, it turned to negotiation. The outcome reshaped an entire nation.
Spain and the Basque Conflict
Spain combined policing with political reforms, eventually bringing ETA to a peaceful end. By 2018, the separatist group was fully dissolved.
The Bangsamoro Peace Process — Philippines
After decades of bloodshed, Manila negotiated a new autonomous region. Dialogue succeeded where military campaigns had failed.
Nepal’s Maoist Settlement
A ten-year civil war ended when the monarchy and the rebels realised no side could win outright. Negotiations paved the way for a new constitution and political stability.
Indonesia’s Aceh Agreement
With international mediation, Jakarta reached a settlement that ended a protracted separatist conflict and restored regional autonomy.
Mozambique and RENAMO
Despite setbacks, continued dialogue brought the country back from the brink and delivered a durable peace agreement.
Senegal and Casamance
Persistent political engagement prevented a low-intensity conflict from escalating.
Canada’s Indigenous Agreements
Rather than prisons or force, Canada addressed long-term grievances through land-rights negotiations and frameworks for self-governance.
Every one of these examples holds a message for Nigeria: no nation has ever built lasting peace through detention alone.
Nigeria’s Contradiction: Soft on Weapons, Hard on Words
The Nigerian government continues to:
-
negotiate with bandits,
-
quietly pay ransom,
-
pardon insurgents,
-
reintegrate militants,
-
and support rehabilitation schemes for hardened fighters.
But it refuses conversation with a political agitator whose tools are speech, activism, and symbolic mobilisation. This contradiction has become impossible to justify. Instead of engaging with South-East leaders, traditional rulers, governors, and civil society actors to address regional grievances, the state has turned the judiciary into an extension of security policy—slow, heavy-handed, and punitive.
You Can Jail a Man, But Not the Questions and The Ideas He Represents:
Even if Nnamdi Kanu spends years in detention, the issues remain:
-
Why do some regions feel marginalised?
-
Why are killers forgiven while dissenters are crushed?
-
Why is state force unevenly applied?
-
Why does the government fear a political conversation more than armed violence?
These are political questions, not criminal ones. And they will not disappear simply because Kanu has been caged. No government has ever succeeded in imprisoning an idea or handcuffing a grievance.
Narratives May Fool Television Audiences — But Not History
The Nigerian state may frame Kanu as the single greatest threat to national stability. But the world sees something else: a country willing to dialogue with militants but terrified of negotiating with a civilian activist. History rarely remembers those who shouted the loudest. It remembers those who acted with justice, fairness, and clarity. Nigeria stands at a decisive moment. It can either continue criminalising political dissent, or it can embrace the wisdom that has ended conflicts from Belfast to Bogotá. The path to stability is not barbed wire or solitary confinement.
It is the courage to talk.
This week, amid widespread concern over fairness, a Nigerian court delivered the maximum punishment in what many observers describe as a deeply flawed trial — sentencing him to life imprisonment or potentially even death.
Who Is Nnamdi Kanu?— A Brief Background
Nnamdi Kanu is a British-Nigerian political activist and the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a movement calling for self-determination for the Igbo-majority South-East region of Nigeria. Born in Abia State and later educated in the United Kingdom, he became known through Radio Biafra, where he voiced the grievances of many in the region: feelings of political exclusion, economic neglect, and historical injustices dating back to the Nigeria–Biafra War.
Supporters view him as a symbol of resistance against marginalisation. Critics consider his rhetoric provocative. Yet, throughout his rise, Kanu has consistently argued that his campaign is political—not violent.
In 2015, he was arrested and charged with offences including treasonable felony. Though granted bail in 2017, he fled the country after a military raid on his home. In 2021, he was controversially seized abroad under murky circumstances and brought back to Nigeria, sparking international concern about extraordinary rendition. Since then, Kanu has remained in prolonged detention despite multiple court rulings ordering his release. His legal journey has been marked by delays, reversals, and accusations of political interference.
Most recently—just days ago—the latest ruling in Abuja delivered the harshest judgment yet. In what observers have called a “kangaroo-style” proceeding, the court imposed the maximum penalties available: life imprisonment, or potentially even the death sentence. This outcome has escalated tensions and renewed debates over justice, due process, and the Nigerian state’s handling of political agitation.
#NigeriaPolitics #NnamdiKanu #IPOB #Peacebuilding #PoliticalDialogue #ConflictResolution #PublicPolicy #NigeriaSecurity #SouthEastNigeria #GlobalPeaceLessons #GoodFridayAgreement #FARC #MandelaLegacy #AcehPeace #Bangsamoro #HumanRightsNigeria #JusticeForAll #NationalUnity #AfricanGovernance #PoliticalReform