Nnamdi Kanu’s Sentencing and the Unfinished Question of Nigeria's Nationhood

By Dr. Ugochukwu Morah

The sentencing of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), to life imprisonment has reignited long-standing tensions in Nigeria’s fragile multi-ethnic landscape. To some, the verdict represents a decisive stand against extremist agitation. To many others, especially in the South-East, it reinforces deep fears of selective justice, ethnic bias, and the persistent failure of the Nigerian state to address legitimate political grievances.

This case is not merely a legal milestone; it is a window into the unresolved question of Nigerian nationhood.

A Verdict in a Fractured Federation

Nigeria is often described as one nation, but in reality it is a complex federation of ethnic nationalities, each with its own historical wounds and political anxieties. For the Igbo-dominated South-East, the memory of the Biafran War and decades of perceived marginalisation shape the emotional and political response to Kanu’s prosecution.

To many Igbos, Kanu’s conviction is not an isolated event. It is interpreted as yet another chapter in a long story of distrust between the region and the federal establishment. Even critics of Kanu’s methods acknowledge that the government’s approach appears harsher when dealing with Igbo-led agitation than when confronting armed groups elsewhere.

Rendition, Rights Violations and the Question of Fair Trial

Any objective analysis of this case must revisit the manner in which Kanu was returned to Nigeria. His 2021 seizure in Kenya and subsequent transfer to Nigeria carried out without formal extradition procedures, was widely criticised as an extraordinary rendition.

Although the courts later ruled that these violations were insufficient to halt the terrorism trial, critics argue that the precedent undermines confidence in the rule of law. In a country where ethnic groups already suspect uneven treatment, the optics are damaging: it suggests that constitutional safeguards may be negotiable depending on who is involved.

Terrorism Charges or Criminalised Dissent?

The government maintains that the conviction was not about political views but about the real-world consequences of IPOB’s activities. The infamous Monday “sit-at-home” orders, regardless of their origins, resulted in violence, economic paralysis, and the loss of innocent lives. Kanu’s inflammatory broadcasts and influence over the movement formed the backbone of the prosecution’s argument.

Supporters of the separatist leader counter that calls for self-determination are not criminal, that IPOB’s leadership repeatedly disavowed violence, and that splinter groups exploited the unrest for their own ends. The broader debate centres on a vital democratic question: Where is the line between extreme political speech and terrorism? And who gets to draw that line?

The Allegation of Selective Justice

Nigeria’s security landscape presents stark contrasts. In the North-West and North-East, armed bandit groups and insurgents have committed mass killings, large-scale kidnappings, and widespread destruction. Yet many of their fighters have been offered amnesty or reintegration.

The government’s no-tolerance posture toward IPOB, in contrast, has been uncompromising.

These discrepancies fuel allegations of double standards. Igbo socio-political groups and human rights advocates argue that the state reacts differently depending on which region or ethnic group is involved. While no two security crises are identical, the perception of unequal justice is powerful and corrosive.

The Overlooked Victims of IPOB’s Agitation

A balanced assessment must also consider the suffering of South-East residents who endured violence, threats, and economic disruption under the enforced sit-at-home regime. Many of these victims feel doubly abandoned by the state that failed to protect them, and by agitators who claimed to be fighting for their freedom.

Any political solution must acknowledge their trauma, not erase it.

The International Dimension

Kanu’s long-standing presence abroad, his dual citizenship, and the involvement of foreign governments in aspects of his case have ensured global attention. How Nigeria handles separatist agitation today will shape international perceptions of its commitment to due process and federal fairness for years to come.

The Larger Question: What Kind of Federation Does Nigeria Want to Be?

The sentencing of Nnamdi Kanu raises profound questions that the life sentence alone cannot answer:

Will Nigeria continue to rely primarily on force to address political discontent?

Can a multi-ethnic nation survive without a justice system that is seen as even-handed?

What legitimate channels exist for Nigerians who feel fundamentally alienated from the union?

Is Nigeria prepared to confront the lingering scars of the civil war in a meaningful way?

For lasting stability, Nigeria must pursue both justice and political dialogue. This includes transparency around the trial, an honest examination of structural grievances in the South-East, and a sincere national conversation about federal restructuring and representation.

Conclusion

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s sentencing is far more than the conviction of a separatist leader. It is a litmus test of Nigeria’s unity, fairness and constitutional maturity. For a federation already stretched thin by insecurity and mistrust, the challenge is not just in punishing offences but in healing the deeper fractures that give rise to separatist agitation.