In the long years that Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has been in the news, I have never had cause to comment on him. Not even his extraordinary rendition from Kenya in June 2021 could tempt me into jumping into the fray. I maintained a distance from the web around him because I know it is sticky.
Kanu and his IPOB spell separatism. And separatism is one word that authorities in Nigeria pretend not to like. It unsettles the establishment in a paradoxical way any time it is brought into the mix. In Nigeria, the word seems to tingle. It even sounds scary. All this is because it brings to life the secession of 1967 that gave birth to the defunct Republic of Biafra.
Our phobia for separatism, strictly speaking, is not rooted in any patriotic desire to keep Nigeria united. We avoid the word because it evokes unpleasant memories. The Igbo people of Nigeria who bore the brunt of the war that came with separatism do not like to be constantly reminded of the harrowing experience. For non-Igbo Nigerians, separatism reminds them of Biafra – the wide-eyed attempt by the Igbo to dismember Nigeria. The reminder pollutes, even for no good reason, the mind of non-Igbo Nigerians. It drives them into redoubling the quantum of their resentment for the Igbo. Is this a situation we should be throwing up recklessly? I do not think so.
Regardless of what may seem like a purist disposition of some of us on this vexed issue, Biafra continues to pop up unceasingly in our everyday engagements. Our national life, as a matter of fact, is defined and shaped by thoughts of Biafra. Whenever Nigerians want to share the national cake, the allocation formula will be determined, first and foremost, by Biafra.
Whenever Nigerians want to go into a national election, issues of Biafra will be of primary consideration. The same is true of every other issue of national concern. Biafra is unspoken, yet it remains a recurring decimal in whatever we do or say as a people inhabiting the blighted star called Nigeria. This set-up unsettles both the victim and those who are striving hard to keep him down.
Essentially, Nigeria as a country has failed to consign Biafra to the ash heaps of history. The phenomenon has continued to define and dictate the direction of the country. What Kanu and his IPOB seem to have achieved is to exacerbate an already trying situation. But they are doing so for a reason. Kanu’s people have, for decades, been fighting off an imposed stigma as a result of Biafra. As they struggle along this line, a dishonest lot have been behaving as if the Igbo are villains. This is in spite of the fact that those looking for villainy in the Igbo are more villainous themselves. A time always comes in the life of a people when they have to ward off irritants who pretend to be holier-than-thou. Kanu and his group are not looking the other way in this regard. They are asking why. IPOD encapsulates all this and more. To this extent, IPOB led by Kanu represents a new thinking in the Biafran philosophy. Therefore, anybody who seeks to comment on Kanu must confront these thorny issues. The person must revisit and relieve that ugly historical experience that has made national unity an abstract phenomenon in our land.
If it is not for the fact that Biafra has a question mark around it, nobody would discuss Kanu with the level of excitement being expended on him. Kanu, for all we care, is just an ordinary Nigerian doing ordinary things. The government of Nigeria has accused him of engaging in hate rhetoric. That may be so. But is he the only Nigerian doing so? Kanu has been accused of indulging in separatism. There are some other Nigerians from other parts of the country who are doing the same thing. They have accused Kanu of engaging in terrorist activities, the reason for which he has been sentenced to life imprisonment. Here, I shudder. What army does Nnamdi Kanu command? His IPOB is a band of freedom fighters. The offshoot it calls Eastern Security Network (ESN) exists only in name. It is only those who are bent on associating IPOD with terrorist activities that lionize the ESN.
It was merely a symbolic response to the security agents who made it a point of duty to be killing the freedom fighters with reckless abandon. Even when they decided to be defending themselves, they had no sophisticated weapons that can wreak havoc. Now, the ragtag group has even fizzled out. It does not exist, in the strictest sense of the word, exist. It was therefore laughable that government, in spite of the fact that IPOB is mild and malleable, decided to label it a terrorist organization. In fact, there is no act of terrorism in Eastern Nigeria or anywhere in the South of the country. When you accuse Kanu of terrorism, are you trying to equate him with the mass killers that are wreaking havoc in the north? From Boko Haram to ISIS and ISWAP and other terrorist organizations in their camp, we have persons and individuals who wear terrorism like a badge of dishonour. They are here in Nigeria with us, plying their deadly trade on a daily basis. But the government of Nigeria has neither arrested any of them nor reined in the organizations they represent. But the same government went after Kanu, even on foreign shores, abducted him with the aid of their foreign collaborators, and forcibly brought him back to Nigeria to face trial.
But the point must be made that the undue focus by government on Nnamdi Kanu has nothing to do with terrorism. It has everything to do with the badge he wears. The Biafran badge assaults the sensibility of non-Igbo Nigerians. Kanu was marked and singled out for persecution and prosecution because Biafra is involved. Remove Biafra from Kanu and he will be seen as innocent as any of us. So, Biafra is the problem, not Kanu.
Whatever may be the case, President Bola Tinubu and his government should not have taken undue interest in the Kanu trial. They should have exercised some restraint. They ought to know that Kanu is not a loner. He represents an entire race. His pain is the pain of the people for whom he stood up to be counted. Now that Tinubu and his cohorts have acted as if they have an axe to grind with Kanu, the Igbo people whom he represents are ill at ease with what has taken place. They are asking questions. They are wondering why Kanu should be made a scapegoat in a country where the real terrorists are being courted and negotiated with. Much more regrettable is that Tinubu’s government has so much baggage to contend with. To have added Nnamdi Kanu to its burden is like hanging an albatross around its neck. It is a needless addition. It is an avoidable misstep.
QUOTE:
“Kanu was marked and singled out for persecution and prosecution because Biafra is involved. Remove Biafra from Kanu and he will be seen as innocent as any of us. So, Biafra is the problem, not Kanu”.
