ALOY EJIMAKOR argues that Nigeria, not Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, should face trial.
This essay is motivated by the perplexing violence that the Federal Government of Nigeria has directed against MAZI NNAMDI KANU since 2015, when the current criminal procedures were initiated against him.
By initially charging Mazi Kanu with treason and later with incitement of terrorism simply because he rightfully agitated for Biafra, the Nigerian government gives the impression that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu (along with IPOB) is the sole reason or culprit (and thus must pay the price) for Biafra’s resurgence following a lull during the Obasanjo, Yar’Adua, and Jonathan administrations.
While Mazi Kanu’s charismatic leadership of the agitation did much to progress it, the alternative fact is that Nigeria (as currently constituted and managed) did much to justify the agitation. In other words, Nigeria, not Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, is responsible for the resurgence of the Biafran specter, which continues to this day.
Nigeria was anticipated to improve after the sad, genocidal Civil War ended in 1970. It was considered a civil war simply because it was fought between compatriots. However, in terms of concept, execution, and dimension, it was everything but civil. It was brutal, attritional, and devoid of any sense of patriotism, which appears to have been revived in the modern era.
There was no guarantee that Igbos or Biafrans would survive the war and its aftermath. However, in the end, and to this day, the people’s instinct for self-preservation, an unparalleled spirit of private enterprise, and their innate street wisdoms ensured that they not only survived, but also reconciled with the injustices of One Nigeria and moved on, hoping for a better Nigeria.
However, with the travails of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and the thousands of young Igbos being prosecuted for daring to protest, Nigeria is returning to the sins that caused the 1967 war.Those who believe they have politically conquered the federation and its great opportunities have no misgivings and are thus unable to comprehend the long-term damage they are causing to One Nigeria’s declining prospects.
With the way postwar Nigeria was unilaterally organized to the disadvantage of one part, and the zeal with which that disadvantage is currently being exploited, it would be stupid and dishonest to expect there to be no resistance. Dissent, like nature, does not originate out of thin air. It arises as a natural reaction to a state’s abuses toward its citizens. In such cases, the State (rather than the citizen-dissenter) is kindling the fires of dissent and secession. This is the scenario that directly contributed to the emergence of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu in 2015.
So, in a way, Nigeria, not Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, should be tried for the Biafran movement, which the Nigerian government has officially categorized as an act of terrorism.
A nation may enjoy healthy and unifying democracy only if its leaders are willing to go beyond the limited interests of their ethnic group and orient their vision to the greater good. This is the primary reason why self-determination decreased throughout the Obasanjo, Yar’Adua, and Jonathan administrations but increased enormously during the Buhari administration. The first shot was launched by former President Buhari when he declared the infamous 97 percent versus 5 percent, a traitorous pronouncement that swiftly gained popularity and was mercilessly implemented throughout his administration.
To top it all off, Buhari referred to the Igbos as “dots” in Nigeria, a dangerous insult that the current administration appears to condone based on the words of some of its minions, such as Bayo Adenuga. And Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s selective trial looks to have sealed Ndigbo’s fate as a people without a strong voice (or dissent) in Nigerian national affairs.
To be true, when tribalism is the most strong force in a varied society, democracy and national unity suffer or exist only as shadows of themselves, or worse, are imposed by fiat and the threat of State violence. Good leaders must have a large heart to accommodate everyone. Leaders must be able to step beyond of their small tribal groups and embrace people of various backgrounds.
They must find concessions and common ground in order to create a system that works for everyone. And you can’t accomplish all of this while continuing to jail and demean a man who did nothing but demand basic political justice for his people. It’s considerably worse (and perhaps deadly) when such a figure has millions of followers and commands their respect and loyalty.
Unfortunately, Nigeria has been thrust into a critical moment in which your vote in the 2023 presidential elections (along with your tribe) are the most important considerations for enjoying basic citizenship rights, including the right to self-determination. Even murderous terrorists, some of whom are foreigners, receive better treatment. In such a scenario, there will be a backlash, popular resistance, best personified by Nnamdi Kanu, who is not afraid to tell you that it cannot be that way.
It is unfortunate that the current vision appears to be of a Nigeria controlled by tribal overlordship, with a fake kind of federalism and an ethnic patriarchy aimed at ensuring silence in the face of oppression. This tragic fact poses a larger threat to Nigeria’s unity than Nnamdi Kanu and his committed tens of millions of supporters. To be fair, Kanu was a dedicated Nigerian nationalist until his hands, like Ojukwu’s, were pushed by Nigeria and the deck set against the Igbo.
We saw the same wave in 1967, and it led nowhere. Not the imagined losers, not the so-called winners. Everyone, loser or winner, appears to have become a loser since the same 1967 mentality of we-versus-them was abruptly unearthed and recast in a new wave of extremism driven by the Nigerian State. And to make matters worse, disagreement, even without guns, results in death. If you’re lucky, you’re either permanently disabled or kidnapped and imprisoned perpetually.
