In the latest wave of political discourse surrounding the contentious figure of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), former presidential aide Bashir Ahmad has ignited a fiery debate. Ahmad, known for his tenure under ex-President Muhammadu Buhari, has taken a staunch stance against those who push for Kanu’s release, branding them as “sworn enemies of this country.”
Ahmad’s recent comments have been disseminated across various platforms, most notably through posts on X, where he explicitly stated, “Anybody advocating for the release of Nnamdi Kanu, a terrorist and the leader of the proscribed terrorist organization IPOB, should be considered a sworn enemy of this country.” This statement was made in response to ongoing discussions and protests demanding Kanu’s release from detention where he has been held since his extraordinary rendition from Kenya in 2021.
The context of these remarks can be traced back to a broader narrative where the Nigerian government, under Buhari’s administration, labeled IPOB as a terrorist organization. This designation has been a point of contention, with supporters of Kanu arguing that IPOB’s activities, primarily centered around advocating for the self-determination of the Igbo people, do not equate to terrorism. Critics of this view, including Ahmad, contend that the actions of IPOB, particularly under Kanu’s leadership, have led to violence and disruption, thus justifying the terrorist label.
Ahmad’s comments have not gone without backlash. Various groups and individuals, including legal experts and human rights advocates, have questioned the legality and morality of branding Kanu as a terrorist and detaining him despite court orders for his release. The Appeal Court of Nigeria discharged and acquitted Kanu in October 2022, yet he remains in custody, a situation that has been criticized as unlawful detainment.
With comments such as “But those who celebrate the release of boko harram members are patriotic Nigerians? What is good for Mr. A is also good for Mr. B”
Read Also: EFCC under fire over Anambra killing, operational tactics in spotlight
The discourse intensified when Ahmad further clarified his position by stating he would not partake in any protest demanding Kanu’s release, emphasizing his view that Kanu’s freedom would be detrimental to national security. This stance was echoed in several posts on X, where he argued against joining protests that include Kanu’s release among their demands.
On the other side, defenders of Nnamdi Kanu argue for his release on the grounds of human rights, pointing out that his detention continues despite judicial rulings. They argue that his advocacy for Biafra independence, while controversial, does not inherently constitute terrorism. Furthermore, there’s a growing sentiment among some quarters that his release could be a step towards addressing deep-seated grievances in the Southeast of Nigeria, potentially leading to peace and dialogue rather than further conflict.
The narrative around Kanu’s detention and Ahmad’s comments highlights a broader issue in Nigerian politics: the balance between national security and individual rights, the definition of terrorism, and the role of political rhetoric in shaping public opinion. While Ahmad’s views align with a segment of the population that sees IPOB’s activities as a threat, it also underscores the polarized views on how to handle separatist movements and their leaders.
As this debate continues, the situation with Nnamdi Kanu remains a litmus test for Nigeria’s commitment to legal principles versus political expediency. Meanwhile, Ahmad’s vocal opposition serves as a reminder of the deep divisions within Nigerian society on issues of identity, autonomy, and the very definition of what it means to be an enemy or ally of the state.
