As Nigeria awaits the court verdict in the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), public debate continues to swirl along political and ethnic lines. Yet the real issues remain rooted in law, national security, and global democratic standards. This moment calls for calm, clarity, and fidelity to the principle that justice must be grounded in evidence, not sentiment.
Kanu’s trial is anchored in Nigerian law, including: Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, Criminal Code Act (offences relating to treasonable felony and incitement), 1999 Constitution (as amended) protects fair hearing while mandating public order and national security.
These provisions align with international obligations Nigeria is bound by, such as: UN Security Council Resolutions 1373 (2001) and 2178 (2014)—requiring states to pursue and prosecute terrorism-related threats through lawful processes.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Nigeria ratified, allowing states to restrict speech that incites violence, separatism, or armed insurrection (Article 19(3) and Article 20).
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which permits states to protect territorial integrity while ensuring fair trial rights.
In essence, Kanu’s prosecution is consistent with global norms on handling separatist-linked violence and incitement, provided due process is maintained, which the courts have repeatedly emphasized.
Across the world, democratic states treat separatist-driven violence, incitement, and armed agitation as serious security concerns. Nigeria’s approach mirrors similar cases:
1. Spain – Catalonia Independence Case (2017–2019). Catalan leaders who orchestrated an illegal independence referendum were prosecuted for sedition and misuse of public funds. Courts held that political expression cannot justify actions that threaten the national order.
2. United Kingdom – IRA-Linked Agitations. Throughout the history of the Irish Republican Army, UK courts prosecuted leaders who incited violence or supported armed groups. Remorse and willingness to de-escalate were frequently considered as mitigating factors, an element Kanu has conspicuously failed to demonstrate.
3. India—Kashmir and Khalistan Cases. India’s Supreme Court has upheld prosecutions of individuals whose speeches or broadcasts encouraged separatism, insurgency, or public disorder. India treats incitement and ideological mobilization, whether or not the leader physically commits violence, as grounds for legal action.
Across these jurisdictions, one thread is consistent: freedom of expression ends where incitement to violence or territorial disintegration begins.
Security assessments globally often factor a defendant’s posture during trial. Kanu’s repeated refusal to acknowledge the destabilizing effects of IPOB-linked violence, coupled with inflammatory rhetoric before his arrest, undercuts claims for sympathy or leniency.
In countries like the UK, Spain, and India, leaders facing similar charges who show no remorse typically receive stricter legal scrutiny because: They pose a continued risk of mobilizing followers toward unrest, they demonstrate an unwillingness to discourage extremist interpretations of their ideology.
Justice Must Not Bend to Sentiment. The rule of law demands that courts assess evidence, not popularity; judicial independence is respected; security agencies maintain professionalism; and no political actor exploit the verdict to inflame tensions.
Sympathy cannot override accountability, especially in cases tied to separatist agitation and violence. No country in the world gives free rein to movements that destabilize regions or threaten sovereignty. Nigeria is acting well within international standards by pursuing a lawful, transparent trial.
As the verdict approaches, Nigeria is being judged not just on the outcome, but on how the process unfolds: Will institutions stand firm? Will the public respect the judgment? Will political and ethnic actors avoid provocative rhetoric? Will security agencies uphold professionalism and restraint? These are the markers of a mature democracy.
This is more than a legal matter; it is a test of Nigeria’s commitment to the rule of law, security, and international democratic standards. His persistent lack of remorse only reinforces the need for a fair but firm judicial outcome.
Whatever the court decides, the nation must rise above emotion and let law, and law alone, prevail.
By James Ibori