By Prof. Steve Azaiki, OON
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!Few figures in Nigeria’s contemporary history have generated as much debate, polarization, and legal controversy as Nnamdi Kanu. To some, he is a freedom fighter who is a symbol of the Igbo struggle for self-determination and a man standing up to systemic marginalization. To others, he is a divisive agitator whose rhetoric and methods threaten the unity and stability of the country. Between these two poles lies a complex human rights and constitutional dilemma that has tested the integrity of Nigeria’s justice system and the maturity of its democracy.
At the heart of the controversy is not merely whether Kanu is guilty or innocent of the charges leveled against him, but whether the Nigerian state has respected its own laws in its pursuit of justice.
The Man and His Movement
Born on September 25, 1967, in Isiama Afara Ukwu, Umuahia, Abia State, Kanu grew up in a royal Igbo family. His father, Eze Israel Okwu Kanu, was a traditional monarch, and his mother, Ugoeze Nnenne Kanu, a teacher. A British-Nigerian citizen who relocated to the United Kingdom in the late 1990s, Kanu immersed himself in activism, channeling his energies into the self-determination cause of the Igbo people. In 2009, he launched Radio Biafra from London, a pirate station broadcasting calls for Biafran independence in a nod to the short-lived Republic of Biafra that sought secession during the civil war, resulting in over a million deaths, mostly from starvation. By 2012, Kanu founded the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a group dedicated to restoring Biafran sovereignty through non-violent means, including referendums and civil disobedience.
Kanu’s rise was meteoric. His broadcasts, laced with sharp critiques of Nigerian governance, corruption, and perceived Igbo marginalization, resonated with a diaspora and youth disillusioned by economic inequality and ethnic tensions. In a 2015 speech at the World Igbo Congress in Los Angeles, he urged supporters to arm themselves for self-defense against Fulani herdsmen attacks, a statement later weaponized against him. IPOB denies these charges, insisting its struggle and Kanu’s core message are rooted in peaceful advocacy, drawing inspiration from figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. Married to Uchechi Okwu Kanu, a UK-based lawyer, and father to a son, Nnabuikem, Kanu’s personal life intertwined with his public persona, often invoking Jewish symbolism in court appearances as a nod to his affinity for Israel’s resilience.
The federal government of Nigeria proscribed IPOB in 2017 and designated it a terrorist organization, citing its alleged involvement in violent attacks and threats to national security.
Today, Kanu languishes in solitary confinement at the Department of State Services (DSS) facility in Abuja, detained since his controversial 2021 rendition from Kenya. His case has ballooned into a national flashpoint, pitting free speech against state security. As protests erupt, most recently a planned October 20, 2025, demonstration in Abuja led by activist Omoyele Sowore, the question looms: Why should Nigeria release Kanu, despite accusations of incitement and terrorism? The answer lies not in excusing rhetoric, but in upholding justice, human rights, and national healing.
The Charges and Allegations
The Nigerian government’s case against Kanu is a tapestry of charges, first filed in 2015 and amended multiple times. Initially arrested on October 14, 2015, in Lagos, Kanu faced 11 counts, including treasonable felony, sedition, ethnic incitement, and managing an unlawful society. Prosecutors alleged his Radio Biafra broadcasts sowed division, calling for Biafran secession and labeling Nigeria’s government “Fulani-controlled.” A pivotal charge: Kanu purportedly imported a radio transmitter (Tram 50L) hidden in Anambra State, aiding “terrorist acts.”
The stakes escalated in 2017 when IPOB was proscribed as a “terrorist organization” by the Federal High Court, following an ex parte application by then-Attorney General Abubakar Malami. This label stuck, despite Justice Binta Nyako’s earlier 2016 ruling that IPOB was not an unlawful society, a decision ignored in the proscription. Post-2021 rendition, charges ballooned to 15, including terrorism under the repealed Terrorism (Prevention) Amendment Act 2013: inciting attacks on police, possessing illegal firearms, and managing a terrorist group pointing to the activities of the Eastern Security Network (ESN) – the armed wing allegedly linked to IPOB – to which several deadly attacks in southeastern Nigeria have been attributed to. DSS witnesses testified to Kanu’s broadcasts directing “sit-at-home” orders that allegedly paralyzed the Southeast, causing economic losses and fear. One exhibit: a video where Kanu’s voice (per prosecution) urged burning Lagos and targeting security forces.
Critics, including Kanu’s lawyers, counter that no evidence links him directly to violence. IPOB denies orchestrating attacks, attributing Southeast insecurity to government-backed herdsmen and unknown gunmen. The terrorism tag, they argue, mischaracterizes non-violent agitation as insurgency, echoing how Boko Haram’s label justified crackdowns but ignored root causes like poverty. As of September 2025, Justice James Omotosho overruled a “no-case” submission, ordering Kanu to defend himself, but the trial now under a fourth judge remains mired in delays.
In 2021, Kanu was re-arrested under disputed circumstances and returned to Nigeria to face trial and according to Associated Press, Nigeria’s Supreme Court in December 2023 reinstated terrorism charges against Kanu after an earlier Court of Appeal judgment had dismissed them. The court said the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to warrant trial, though it emphasized that this did not amount to a declaration of guilt.
A Contested Rendition
Kanu’s 2021 arrest in Kenya, allegedly lured by Nigerian agents posing as supporters, bypassed extradition treaties, constituting “extraordinary rendition” (i.e., an illegal abduction across borders without judicial process). A Kenyan High Court ruled it illegal in June 2025, citing violations of Articles 7, 12, and 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Nigeria’s Court of Appeal echoed this on October 13, 2022, discharging Kanu and ordering his release, deeming the rendition a “clear violation of international law.” Yet, the Supreme Court reinstated charges in December 2023, prioritizing “public interest” over procedural fairness, a decision Kanu’s team calls “judicial lawlessness.”
In DSS custody, Kanu endures solitary confinement, denied family visits and adequate medical care. His lawyers report liver/pancreatic issues, low potassium, and a lump under his arm—exacerbated by COVID-19 risks. The Nigerian Medical Association deemed him “fit” in October 2025, but critics like Dr. Adefolaseye Adebayo argue the body lacks authority for such declarations. Surveillance of lawyer-client meetings breaches Section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution, ensuring “adequate facilities for defense.”
These violations compound: The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (Opinion 25/2022) condemned the rendition as breaching 16 human rights instruments, urging immediate release and reparations. Amnesty International has decried DSS torture, including beatings and denial of medication. The UK’s Court of Appeal expressed “deep concern” in 2023, noting UN and Nigerian rulings for release. Kanu petitioned 18 nations and bodies including the US, EU, AU, and ECOWAS in August 2025, warning of life-threatening risks.
Legal and Human Rights Questions
The crux of Kanu’s ongoing detention lies in the balance between state security and constitutional liberty. His lawyers have consistently argued that his continued incarceration violates Section 35 and 36 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing and protection of liberty, and international obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
They also contend that his trial is being conducted under a repealed law; the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act of 2013 that has been replaced by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act of 2022. If true, this would render the ongoing proceedings null and void.
Even more troubling is the government’s record of ignoring court orders. In October 2022, the Court of Appeal ordered Kanu’s release after declaring his detention illegal, yet the federal government refused to comply pending appeal. For a democracy founded on separation of powers, this raises an existential concern: Is the Nigerian state itself bound by its own laws?
The Case for His Release
The argument for Kanu’s release rests not on the denial of Nigeria’s right to prosecute, but on the principles of justice and rule of law. There are at least four key reasons why continued detention may do more harm than good.
- Legality and Due Process: If Kanu’s extradition was indeed unlawful, as courts in Kenya and Nigeria have suggested, then his ongoing detention undermines the very foundation of the case against him. A government that circumvents its own laws to secure prosecution risks delegitimizing the entire process.
- Presumption of Innocence: Kanu has been detained for most of the past four years without conviction. The Nigerian Constitution presumes an accused person innocent until proven guilty. To continue holding him indefinitely without a verdict sets a worrying precedent of pre-trial punishment.
- National Cohesion and Pragmatism: Politically, Kanu’s case has become a lightning rod for discontent in the South-East. His prolonged detention fuels conspiracy theories and deepens the perception of systemic marginalization among the Igbo population. A conditional release, perhaps under strict bail terms, could reduce tensions and open room for genuine dialogue.
- International Reputation: As a dual Nigerian-British citizen, Kanu’s continued detention without transparent resolution has drawn international attention. Britain and global human rights organizations have repeatedly urged Nigeria to respect its constitutional safeguards. Resolving his case in line with due process would enhance Nigeria’s global image as a rule-of-law democracy.
The Security Argument
To be fair, the government’s caution is not without basis. IPOB’s activities have coincided with an upsurge in violent attacks on security personnel and public institutions in the South-East. The state has a legitimate duty to protect lives and property, and cannot afford to ignore threats to national security.3
Yet, even in matters of national security, the rule of law must prevail. The challenge before the government is to distinguish between legitimate political expression and violent extremism, and to prosecute the latter with evidence, not sentiment.
Between Justice and Political Settlement
Kanu’s detention isn’t just personal injustice; it’s a tinderbox. Southeast insecurity as observed in attacks on police, and the “sit-at-home” paralysis worsened post-rendition, costing billions and lives. Releasing him de-escalates, fostering dialogue as urged by RULAAC’s 2025 Enugu Summit. Politically, it’s pragmatic: Figures like Peter Obi and Kenneth Okonkwo cite ethnic bias and ask “why rehabilitate bandits but jail agitators?”
Legally, precedents abound: Abia High Court’s 2022 N1 billion award for rights violations; Court of Appeal’s discharge. International pressure mounts as Fein’s 2023 letter to Buhari warned of UN “hammer.” Economically, freedom restores investor confidence in a region vital for trade.
Critics fear chaos, but evidence shows detention breeds it.
Kanu’s case is no longer just a legal matter; it is a national question that touches the fault lines of Nigeria’s federation. The agitation for Biafra cannot be wished away by force or silence, it must be addressed through justice, equity, and dialogue.
Releasing Nnamdi Kanu whether on medical, legal, or humanitarian grounds would not amount to surrender. It would be a demonstration of state confidence and constitutional maturity. It would affirm that Nigeria’s democracy is strong enough to handle dissent without resorting to perpetual detention.
As one commentator recently wrote, “When the state tramples one person’s rights, it endangers us all.” That warning goes beyond Kanu’s case. It speaks to the kind of republic Nigeria aspires to be: one that safeguards both unity and liberty, even for its most controversial citizens.
Conclusion: Justice as the Test of Unity
Nnamdi Kanu remains one of Nigeria’s most divisive figures as a hero to some and menace to others. But his fate now transcends personal identity or ideology as his prolonged detention has become a referendum on Nigeria’s moral conscience. A mirror through which the Nigerian state must examine its commitment to fairness, its tolerance for dissent, and its capacity for justice.
If the government truly seeks peace and unity, it must first demonstrate fidelity to the principles that hold the nation together: justice, equity, and respect for human rights. To release him, or to try him swiftly and fairly, is to restore public faith in the system. Because in the end, a nation’s greatness is not measured by how it treats its heroes but by how it treats those it calls its enemies.
*Prof. Steve Azaiki is a former member of the House of Representatives, and Political Commentator
Kindly share
