The arrest and repatriation of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra IPOB, was for obvious reasons the biggest story of last week. And it will continue to dominate the media space especially given sketchy information on the circumstance, place of arrest and the agenda of the dramatis personae.
Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami opened the gate for all manner of speculations while breaking the news when he said Kanu was ‘intercepted’ by security and intelligence agencies in collaboration with their foreign counterparts without details on where and how it happened. Not unexpectedly, the social media went into frenzy with all manner of speculations and reports purportedly issued by some organizations on the development. The nature of those conjectures and the indecent haste they emerged on the public scene could not but raise doubts as to who was behind them and what they were intended to achieve.
One of those stories claimed Kanu was lured by a lady and arrested in a hotel room. Coming in the wake of the murder of the Chief Executive Officer of Super TV Michael Ataga, the purport of that association was not hidden. But one thing that gave out that story was that it hit the media space even before many people got to know of the arrest proper. So when were the stories written and where did the faceless authors get their facts?
The other was a statement purportedly issued by Ohaneze Ndigbo on the same arrest. The issues traded as well as the timing also raised doubts as to whether that body could react in such a hurry when the situation was still hazy. And to compound the situation, the purported statement was neither attributed to any of those authorized to speak on behalf of the Ohaneze nor was the source disclosed. They all struck as fake news designed to achieve some pre-determined agenda.
It was not surprising that some other national media organizations came out the next day with reports that Kanu was arrested when he went to solicit support from some foreign countries. There was also the dimension that he went to collect funds promised him by an unnamed group for the prosecution of the self-determination agenda of the IPOB. But all these remain within the realm of conjecture in the face of the reluctance or refusal by the federal government to make such details public.
Information minister, Lai Mohammed at a press conference last Thursday, made references to raging speculations on how Kanu was arrested and the country of the arrest but still left the matter hanging. The government prefers to hold the circumstances of that interception to its chest apparently to avoid stirring up another round of controversy. But the minister made it clear that security and intelligence agencies had been on the trail of the IPOB leader for more than two years.
That says something about some of the speculations. One thing that remains certain however is that Kanu was arrested outside the United Kingdom. It is also certain that he was captured in circumstances that were rather unconventional.
That however, is beside the point. The issue is what to make of the arrest now Kanu is within the custody of the Nigerian government. Already, the government is beating its chest celebrating the success of the arrest. Even as Mohammed failed to avail the county with details of the arrest, he was quick to describe it as “one of the most classic operations of its type in the world” That may as well be. He also said there would be fair trial for the IPOB leader.
In the weeks ahead, we expect a long drawn legal battle as the government moves to prove beyond reasonable doubt many of the weighty allegations levied against the suspect. The trial which is expected to be open is bound to be very revealing and emotional given the issues in contention. And in an issue of this nature, the options are clear. It is either Kanu is convicted on some or all of the charges and sentenced or he is freed on all of them and set free.
The judicial process will determine all the allegations against the IPOB leader and deliver judgment on all of them. That is in line with the statutory duties of the judiciary. It also goes with the assumption that diligent prosecution and conclusion of the case constitutes both the necessary and sufficient conditions for a lasting closure to all the issues to the IPOB agitation.
The latter does not quite add up because it rests on the assumption that systemic inequity which fuels the agitation for self-determination in that part of the country is all about Kanu and the offences he allegedly committed. And his arrest, trial and possible sentence will see an end to the agitation. That is an oversimplification of a very complex issue. Not with the large following he has both outside and within the country. Not with the substance of some of his messages that strike a common chord with the existential realities of those it was meant for.
In verity, his language of discourse, sometimes laden with insults and abuses may have alienated him from some segments of the Nigerian population. He may also strike as a bad messenger. But aspects of his message find great appeal on those they were intended for because of the systemic dysfunctions constantly assailing this country. That message will continue to find audience as long as our leaders exploit the imperfections of our federal order to serve interests of parochial and clannish hue.
The clamor for justice, equity, a common sense of belonging and a governance framework that enables all citizens to realize their full potentials have nothing to do with the fate of Kanu and it is not tied to it. The solution lies in honest and realistic resolution of all issues that overtime accentuate centrifugal tendencies. Even then, the proscribed IPOB is just one out of the groups on the same agenda. Kanu may be commanding a larger following but he is by no means, the character that raised consciousness on the suffocating systemic injustice that serve as the oxygen for the agitations.
Ralph Uwazuruike that originally founded the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra MASSOB has since been edged out of the organization. He now leads the Biafra Independent Movement BIM. There is also Biafra Zionist Movement BZM led by Benjamin Onwuka that was involved in a foiled attempt to hoist their flag and seize the Enugu state Government. Unlike the IPOB, these three other groups are not under proscription. Sadly, in the military campaigns against the IPOB in the south east for alleged attacks on government facilities and killing of security personnel, that reality was not factored in. The attendant stigmatization and profiling reduced every Igbo especially the youth to potential IPOB members. With that mindset, allegations of extra-judicial killings, detention, incarceration and sundry rights abuses were freely traded.
The fate of Kanu cannot offer solutions to the rising agitations for self-determination either in the south east or across the country. He is not the only arrowhead of such campaigns either in the south east or the south west that has more than 24 of such groups according to Lagos state police commissioner of police, Hakeem Odumosu. Neither has the arrest of Kanu stopped the group from agitations and showing solidarity with the O’odua self-determination groups in the current travails of one of their leaders, Sunday Igboho.
The judicial angle to Kanu’s case is relevant. But more relevant and more enduring is the political dimension to issues that propel groups to lose confidence in the capacity of the federal order to serve their collective interests. It should be of utmost concern that more than 60 after independence, primordial units are still in ferocious competition with the central authority for the loyalty of the citizens.
The thing to do is to engage the constituents and find lasting solutions to the challenges that erected a wedge on the country’s road to constructing a just and equitable federal order. Engage the agitators and the nationalities to move the country forward. Paul Robeson comes handy when he said “the answer to injustice is not to silence the critic but to end the injustice”
