The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) emerged from a long-standing secessionist sentiment in Nigeria’s South East region. Its roots can be traced back to the secessionist movement of the 1960s, led by Lt. Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu, which sought to establish the Republic of Biafra. The movement stemmed from feelings of marginalization by the central government, dominated by leaders from the Northern part of Nigeria. This initial secession attempt led to the Nigerian Civil War from 1967 to 1970. Although the war ended with the reintegration of the Biafran region into Nigeria, the sentiment of separatism persisted
IPOB, under the leadership of Nnamdi Kanu, gained prominence in the 2010s. Kanu, initially broadcasting from London through Radio Biafra, criticized the Nigerian government and advocated for the freedom of Biafrans. His arrest in 2015 on charges including sedition and treasonable felony further fueled the movement’s activities. IPOB’s actions, such as protests and civil disobedience, had often resulted in clashes with Nigerian security forces. Between 2015 and 2016, for example, about 150 pro-Biafra protesters were reportedly killed by Nigerian security forces
The Nigerian government had taken a hard stance against IPOB, proscribing it as a terrorist organization in 2017 under Nigeria’s Terrorism Act.
Kanu’s disappearance in 2017, after a raid on his home by the Nigerian military, escalated tensions, leading to the deaths of several IPOB members
The subsequent “Operation Python Dance” exercises, conducted by the Nigerian Army, had significant impacts on the situation involving the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). These military operations were perceived in varying ways and played a role in the radicalization and subsequent proscription of IPOB.
The military exercises, particularly Python Dance II, was seen by many as an unnecessary and unwarranted show of force by the Nigerian government that was followed by the equally high handed proscription of IPOB and its designation as a terrorist organization. This sequence of events suggests that the military’s presence and actions in the region at the time contributed to escalating tensions and the government’s decision to officially ban the group.
The operation was fraught with controversy, as it was criticized for human rights violations and excessive use of force. Reports suggested that the military’s actions during these operations contributed to an environment of brutal intimidation and suppression, further alienating the IPOB supporters and mainly contributing to the radicalization of the movement.
The fallout of the python dance exercises precipitated incidents where IPOB members allegedly engaged in violent activities, including attacks on police installations and the killing of security personnel.
Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of IPOB, had always insisted that the group’s agitation for the Sovereign State of Biafra was a response to what he saw as the prioritization of northern interests over those of other groups in Nigeria by successive governments. This, combined with historical grievances, fueled the separatist movement. Kanu had always argued that the Nigerian government’s repressive actions, particularly through operations like Python Dance, were targeted attacks on Biafrans asserting their identity and calling for referendum and self-determination.
The illegal rendition of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), from Kenya to Nigeria in June 2021 significantly escalated the activities and dynamics surrounding IPOB. Kanu was extradited without a formal extradition hearing and was brought to Nigeria, where he faced a series of amended charges.
The manner of Kanu’s rendition was even deemed illegal by a Nigerian appellate court, which held that this act violated international conventions and treaties on extradition. The court further ruled that the illegal rendition stripped the trial court of its jurisdiction to continue trying Kanu. This decision was based on the grounds that Kanu’s fundamental rights were grossly violated, and the federal government of Nigeria failed to prove the legality of his arrival in Nigeria. The court’s ruling essentially terminated the charges that had been pending against Kanu since 2015.
Kanu’s health condition, worsened by the rendition, also became a point of concern. He had been suffering from a severe medical condition, which deteriorated due to the alleged torture and inhumane treatment he experienced during his abduction. Despite these challenges, Kanu is still being held in solitary confinement by the DSS, adding to the already tense situation.
The circumstances surrounding Kanu’s rendition and continued detention, despite the court’s ruling, further fueled the sentiments among IPOB supporters and sympathizers. This situation contributed to the further radicalization of the movement and led to the up shoot of some opportunist factions, as it reinforced the perception of injustice and heavy-handedness by the Nigerian government towards the group, the issues and its leader.
IPOB’s resultant imposition of a weekly ‘sit-at-home order’ in protest in southeastern states only served to disrupt daily life and economic activities, affecting businesses, schools, and transportation.
Internationally, there are differing views on the designation of IPOB as a terrorist group. Human rights organizations have criticized the Nigerian government’s response to IPOB protests and have called for investigations into the deaths of IPOB members and supporters
The group’s radicalization and the Nigerian government’s response under former President Buhari highlighted deeply rooted historical grievances and perceptions.
The continued detention of Nnamdi Kanu, under this current government, carries significant implications and potential risks.
The perception of Kanu as a political martyr could contribute to further radicalization within IPOB and similar groups. This situation could transform a primarily political struggle into a more violent conflict, attracting more extreme elements and exacerbating the security situation in the region.
Internationally, the manner of Kanu’s arrest and continued detention, especially as it is seen as violating international law, could attract further criticism from human rights organizations and foreign governments.
Domestically, Kanu’s ongoing detention could become a rallying point for opposition groups within Nigeria, further polarizing the political landscape and challenging national unity. It also raises human rights concerns, particularly as the conditions of his detention in DSS custody and not in prison are allegedly harsh and inhumane, provoking reactions from human rights advocates both domestically and internationally.
Additionally, the shoddy and biased handling of Kanu’s case could set a concerning legal precedent in Nigeria. If due process and legal norms are perceived to be ignored, this could undermine the rule of law and public trust in the legal system and the government more broadly.
Finally, Kanu’s continued detention might be seen as a sign of bad faith, making it more challenging to achieve a peaceful resolution to the general issues at hand.
In summary, Kanu’s release is imperative to rebuild trust and put to rest insinuations and perceptions of inequitable treatment of Igbo issues as in contrast to how the Oduduwa republic agitation and the rampaging Boko haram insurgency have been handled by the federal government.
Chimazuru Nnadi-Oforgu
“Duruebube Ihiagwa ofo asato”
OBLONG MEDIA UNLIMITED 
Leave a comment