By Osas Ekpebolo
Across the globe, governments are grappling with the delicate balance between national unity and the expression of dissent. Few cases illustrate this better than Spain’s handling of the Catalan independence movement. Following Catalonia’s unilateral referendum in 2017, Spain prosecuted leading separatist figures, including former Vice President Oriol Junqueras, who received a 13-year sentence. Others, like Foreign Minister Raül Romeva and Labour Minister Dolors Bassa, were sentenced to 12 years for offenses including sedition, as inciting rebellion against lawful authority.
Nigeria has faced its share of separatist and insurrectionist campaigns. Yet, unlike the Spanish government’s firm but legal response, the Nigerian state continues to face undue criticism, both domestically and internationally, for lawful actions taken against those who pose a threat to national security.
Consider Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). Following his call for a referendum, Kanu escalated his movement into an armed campaign. Reports and video evidence of IPOB’s Eastern Security Network engaged in violent confrontations with security forces and civilians alike. Funds were allegedly solicited from the Diaspora to purchase arms—a grave charge that cannot be ignored in any sovereign state.
Similarly, Simon Ekpa, a Finnish-Nigerian politician, has emerged as a successor to Kanu’s separatist ideology. From abroad, Ekpa declared the so-called “Biafra Government in Exile” and is orchestrating violent campaigns in Nigeria, including enforcing illegal sit-at-home orders that have paralyzed businesses and cost innocent lives.
In a separate vein, activist Omoyele Sowore, under the banner of "#RevolutionNow", has been inciting insurrection after multiple failed presidential bids. While dissent and protest are democratic rights, the line between protest and incitement must not be blurred, particularly when there are credible threats to public order.
Most recently, Professor Patrick Utomi has come under scrutiny for instigating a “shadow government”, a concept which, though perhaps academic or symbolic in other contexts, raises critical legal and constitutional questions in a young democracy like Nigeria’s. These individuals, many holding dual citizenship, often operate under the shield of foreign protection while sowing seeds of unrest back home. Their actions, covert or overt, must be examined through the lens of the law, not politics. As Spain’s example shows, sovereignty cannot be compromised in the name of appeasement.
The politicization of law enforcement and national security actions in Nigeria is dangerous. Every state has the right to preserve its unity, and prosecuting those who threaten that unity is not tyranny—it is governance.
The Nigerian government must remain committed to due process and the rule of law. But it must also resist pressure from interest groups and international actors who fail to understand the full scope of these threats. Sovereignty is non-negotiable, and peace cannot be sacrificed at the altar of sentiment.
Nigeria belongs to all of us. Preserving its unity, security, and democratic foundations must take precedence over any narrow or sectional agenda.