The decision of the Federal Government to proceed with the trial of Nnamdi Kanu for terrorism may be legally expedient, it however is only likely to prolong the tension surrounding the continued detention of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). It is imperative therefore of government to not onlybe mindful of the implications of its decision, but to accelerate the trial and make it an open and transparent one to the public. Even that may not reduce tension in the South East part of Nigeria, following the public interest the issue has garnered.

The economy and social life of the five south eastern states and their neighbouring states is already seriously impaired by the weekly sit-at-home order of pro-secessionist groups, a situation that has defied various government’s interventions. A political solution would have been more embracing in this instance, considering in particular that agitations for political autonomy by the Kanu-led IPOB is not altogether unfounded in the Nigeria of today with its multidimensional problems.

From indications, Kanu’s trial may actually commence tomorrow, if information coming from his counsel is anything to go by. According to Aloy Ejimakor, special counsel to the IPOB leader, the Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed February 26, 2024 for hearing on the resumed trial of his client, Nnamdi Kanu, Ejimakor disclosed this in a post on his X handle (formerly known as Twitter) last week, stressing that Justice Binta Nyako, the trial judge, will continue presiding over the case.

Last December 15 (2023), the Supreme Court ordered that Kanu should face criminal trial over the terrorism charges against himby the Federal Government thereby quashing expectations that he could regain his freedom. The court thereby overruled the October 2022, Court of Appeal judgment’s quashing of the seven counts left in the treasonable felony charge against. The Appeal Court had held that the Federal Government violated international laws in the manner Kanu was arrested in Kenya and brought to Nigeria.

However, the Supreme Court ordered Kanu to face the criminal charges against him, holding that although Kanu’s abduction was unlawful, such an unlawful act has not divested any court of the jurisdiction to try him. It further observed that the Court of Appeal did not rely on any Nigerian law in seeking to release Kanu, adding that the only remedy available to Kanu against the unlawful abduction is to file a civil action against the Federal Government instead of removing the powers of courts to continue with his criminal trial.

Understandably, this decision is not sitting well with many people directly affected by the unrest in the eastern part of the country. The apex Igbo socio-cultural organisation, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, called for calm in the region, noting that it is actively engaging with stakeholders across Nigeria to mount pressure on the Federal Government to drop the charges against Kanu. Also reacting, Chief Chekwas Okorie beckoned on South-Eastern leaders to reengage President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in peaceful resolution of the matter.

There is no question on the propriety of the ruling of the apex court which is final. Nonetheless, there is no harm in revisiting Kanu’s matter with a view to resolving it politically rather than treating it as a purely legal matter. This will not in any way truncate the rule of law but rather amplify it as the law endorses alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

It Is worth recalling that IPOB’s agitation for secession was initially polemical but increasingly turned violent partly because the organization embarked on some violent measures carried out by its military wing called Eastern Security network (ESN), to which government also reacted by deploying the military to the area. Kanu himself reportedly made harsh pronouncements considered in many circles as inciting and treasonable. Largely however, the then President, Muhammadu Buhari had ignored the agitations seemingly as inconsequential.

Rather, President Buhari proscribed IPOB as a terrorist organization, an action that has now been upturned by the court. The current government should not repeat this error, as it may exacerbate tension in the eastern region. It is canvassed that where the government has the capacity to douse tension, it should not fail to do so.

Although, the Nigerian constitution outlaws secession; the right to self-determination is enshrined in Article 20 of The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights which has been ratified and domesticated in Nigeria. Also, Nigerian citizens are clothed with the right to freedom of expression and to hold opinions without any interference. Rather than attempt to gag Biafra agitators, the government should engage them in dialogue for their legitimate concerns, which incidentally are also the concerns of other Nigerians. The factors driving the call for Biafra are still prevailing; therefore, the people should be allowed to ventilate their grievances, albeit, within the ambit of the law.

Contrary to the provision of Section 14 (3) of the 1999 Constitution, successive governments have failed to conduct the affairs of the country in such a manner that reflects the diversity of the people, fosters national unity, promotes a sense of belonging among all the people, and commands national loyalty thereby ensuring that government is not lopsided in favour of, or tilted against, persons from a particular ethnic or sectional group.

Clamour for the sovereign state of Biafra arose from perceived marginalisation, social injustice, economic imbalance, and inequality against the Igbos over the years. Sadly, many other sections of the country identify with these lapses and claim to be similarly affected. President Tinubu should toe the path of peace in addressing the matter of IPOB and Kanu.

Reciprocally, the IPOB leader must also make fundamental concessions and pledge to keep the peace and to eschew incitement of his followers to violence, as a condition for his release. Until otherwise determined through popular and acceptable participation of the entire Nigerians, the country remains one indivisible and indissoluble Sovereign State.

State Governors, including governors of South East states should take large responsibility for social and political agitations in their domain, as they have collectively failed to deliver the dividends of democracy to their people. It is the primary responsibility of Governors to ensure that all revenue (federal monthly allocations, internally generated revenue and other funds received from the federal government, and international bodies) are distributed to improve the lives of the people. The development of the eastern region rests more on the state governments than the Federal Government. Accordingly, instead of being solely fixated on the central government, IPOB and Igbos generally should also demand accountability and good governance from their regional political leaders.

Update news