Opinion poll :Nnamdi Kanu dwells in dilemma. To remain in prison or renounce Biafra?

Editor’s opinion : The Head of the
Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and
the director of Radio Biafra, Nnamdi
Kanu, was arrested in October 2015
as he visited Lagos. IPOB
leader, who is leading the struggle for an
independent nation of Biafra, was earlier
granted bail but he was also re-arrested
by the SSS, which mounted a fresh
charge of treasonable felony against
him.
In this piece for the Naijachrome the author
examines the way forward and the way
back for Nnamdi Kanu in his difficult
struggle.
Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of
IPOB
Kanu is a political detainee/prisoner
The leader of the Indigenous Peoples
of Biafra (IPOB) and director of Radio
Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has been
languishing in detention since
October 14, 2015 when the Directorate
of State Services, DSS, arrested him.
In spite of court orders for him to be
released on bail, the Federal
Government has stubbornly held on to
him.
He is being tried for treason: allegedly
operating a pirate radio outfit that
broadcast subversive messages and
leading a group which is openly
committed to the dismemberment of
Nigeria, which is what the
independence of Biafra will amount
to.
What it simply means is that Kanu is a
political detainee/prisoner. In many
cases, such prisoners can hope for a
reprieve from either prolonged, life or
death sentence through political
negotiations by his comrades,
followers or sympathisers based on
their willingness to shift grounds or
the willingness of their opponents (the
government) to shift grounds.

For instance, Kurdish separatist
leader, Abdullah Ocalan, was
sentenced to death for a treasonable
offence similar to that of Kanu, but
when he renounced violence and
opted for a political solution to the
independence of the Kurds from
Turkey, he was eventually granted
reprieve. On the other hand, anti-
Apartheid leader, Dr Nelson Mandela
remained unbending about his desire
for the overthrow of the Apartheid
regime, and had to spend 27 long
years in jail. It took major shifts in
international attitudes to the
Apartheid regime and a willing
reformer in the person of President
FW De Klerk for conditions acceptable
to Mandela to emerge for him to be
released. He then joined a political
process that eventually saw him
becoming the President of South
Africa on the platform of his party, the
African National Congress, ANC.
However, unlike Ocalan and Kanu,
Mandela was not fighting for
separation but majority rule.
Notion of freedom for Kanu
The Buhari regime refused to
entertain any notion of freedom for
Kanu until the Niger Delta Avengers
(NDA’s) massive bombing of our oil
infrastructure in the Niger Delta held
the country’s leadership by the balls.
When the residency shifted grounds
and became more amenable to a
negotiated settlement to enable the
country resume her full exploitation of
the oil that she had depended on for
over 40 years, the Movement for the
Emancipation of the Niger Delta
(MEND) re-entered the picture.
MEND, which had propelled the earlier
version of the Niger Delta militancy
that ended in the amnesty
arrangement, saw an opportunity to
wrest a deal that would accommodate
the interests of the nation’s recently
emerged unified political bloc, the
South East and South-South. Thus,
came the proposal for the release of
political prisoners, including the Okah
brothers apprehended for MEND’s
acts of terror some years back, and of
course, Kanu, if they would renounce
their agitations for separatism.
Though the federal government has
not yet openly admitted that such
talks were ongoing, Kanu directly
made it clear he was not game for any
such deal.
It was Biafra or nothing
Even his wife, Lolo Uchechi Okwu-
Kanu, issued a statement saying:
“Anybody thinking that my husband will
renounce Biafra is certifiably insane”.

The truth is that Kanu has found
himself in the situation that the late
Bashorun Moshood Abiola did when
he was detained by General Sani
Abacha after the Epetedo Declaration
on June 11, 1994: he is now trapped
in jail.
Abacha and his supporters would
have been overjoyed to let Abiola go
only if he would renounce the
struggle for his annulled presidential
mandate, but Abiola’s supporters, who
were fighting – and some were dying
– for him and the struggle, would
have none of that. Fancy what would
have happened if Abiola had broken
bounds, renounced his mandate and
come back to open society? He would
instantly have become a persona non-
grata! The same National Democratic
Coalition civil society groups and the
Yoruba nationalist activists who were
ready to lay down their lives for him
would have turned viciously against
him. His life and property (and
possibly those of his loved ones)
could have been in danger, for the
precise reason that many had been
killed and people’s property destroyed
by the government forces for coming
out to fight for him.
Kanu’s renunciation of the struggle
Kanu’s case is even more extreme in
that the army has killed hundreds of
unarmed pro-Biafra protesters. They
have been given heroes’ burials since
the Biafra protests started in the
middle of 2015. Many are also being
tried for treason.
With the kind of vehement emotion
that these young men (and women)
carry this Biafra thing, Kanu’s
renunciation of the struggle would
result in consequences better not
imagined. He is far safer and better in
jail, a hero and symbol of the
struggle. He had better settle down
for a long stay and hope that like in
South Africa, the political atmosphere
can suddenly change to
accommodate a settlement terms that
could safely propel him and his
loyalists out of prison.

I don’t know how this can happen, but
there is nothing permanent in politics
– even the much-touted “indivisibility”
of Nigeria. No political arrangement
lasts forever, much less the Nigerian
type which is guaranteed mainly by
force, the power of oil and the
indecisive character of those who
complain the loudest.
One good thing going for Kanu and all
the pro-Biafra groups is that they
profess non-violence. But IPOB’s
unbridled sabre-rattling over the
airwaves is almost as effective in
mobilising the angry youth against the
Nigerian state – if not more so – as a
call to arms. I don’t think that any
government (even if headed by an
Igbo) will look forward to releasing
Kanu to go and continue from where
he stopped. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has
taken up a brave and difficult
struggle.
It is going to be a long one as well.
Going forward may be difficult, but
going back will be impossible, as
Ghanaian playwright, Kofi Awoonor-
Williams would say. But in politics,
miracles do happen.

Kindly note that the opinion expressed in this article are
the author’s own and do not by any means
represent the editorial policy of
Naijachrome.com.

Your own opinion articles are welcome