IPOB supporters
The Enugu High Court’s recent voiding of the proscription of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), and the court’s declaration that the continued detention of the organisation’s leader, Nnamdi Kanu, is unconstitutional, have jointly raised the bar in promoting a political settlement to the impasse surrounding the duo. Notwithstanding the right of the Federal Government to appeal against the court’s decision – and the appeal can go either way – the ideal thing is to see the subsisting declaration as middle ground for initiatives to bring lasting peace to the embattled South East region.
The organisation was proscribed by the Federal Government and the South-East Governors Forum after IPOB was declared as a terrorist organisation, a declaration that the Enugu High Court voided, in a judgment following a suit challenging the declaration. Justice Anthony Onovo faulted the 2017 proscription, declaring it as illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. The judge further ordered the government to pay Kanu N8 billion damages and to tender a public apology to him through newspaper publications.
However, IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu, through his counsel, Mr Aloy Ejimakor, approached the court to seek the reversal of the prescription, urging the court to declare that IPOB proscription was illegal as it was an organisation “composed of citizens of Nigeria of the Igbo and other eastern Nigerian ethnic groups, professing the political opinion of self-determination.”
The judgment is a further boost to that of the Court of Appeal in Abuja which, in October 2022, declared the abduction of Kanu from Kenya as unlawful in addition to vacating the terrorism charges against him. While ongoing legal proceedings against IPOB and its leader may have become obligatory for the government considering the sensitive nature of the issues involved, the fact however remains that the prevailing standoff can be better and more quickly resolved through sincere political engagement. This can be in deference to public opinion and the view of Igbo elders that such resolution is the tonic needed to bring peace to the South-East, which has been bogged down by sit-at-home orders purportedly issued by IPOB or groups claiming to be IPOB.
The deteriorating security situation in the South-East, amidst lingering legal tussles, compels consideration of a political solution by the Federal Government towards addressing the complex issues around IPOB’s separatist agitation in the overall interest of the polity. Of course it will be imperative for IPOB’s main actors as well as concerned stakeholders in the South-East to reciprocate the gesture by embracing political resolution considering that legal option would most likely end up a long winding route that may eventually yield no concrete and meaningful outcome.
Regrettably, however, IPOB’s agitation appears to have delegitimised genuine clamour by the Igbo people of the South-East for inclusive federation. Whatever the case, separatist agitation speaks to the contradictions that befuddled the Nigerian State, and therefore, calls for engagement regardless of misgivings about IPOB’s activities. It must be emphasised though that the methodology adopted by IPOB’s lead campaigners is unacceptable and can no longer be tolerated as it has proven unhelpful and extremely counterproductive.
Notwithstanding, the post-war marginalisation sentiment that is entrenched in the South-East must not be allowed to persist. The administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu must, as matter of priority, avoid the pitfalls of its predecessors that failed to demonstrate unfettered commitment towards addressing legitimate demands for genuine federalism, which remains germane as ever. It is time to concede that dialogue remains a more potent weapon than the most brutal force the government could possibly muster in addressing the knotty issues surrounding IPOB’s secessionist agenda considering the irrefutable contradictions that fuel disaffections and agitations against the Nigerian State.
It should be worrisome that legal proceedings reading IPOB’s proscription as well as Kanu’s detention are turning out a distraction to meaningful engagement on the serious issues of violence and insecurity that have become a common feature across the South-East. More disturbing is that the Nigerian State has neither genuinely kept faith with the legal option it initiated against IPOB and its leader nor explored political options in engaging the issues with surefooted commitment. It is lamentable that the tempo of self-determination agitations across the country has refused to take the back seat after two decades of civil rule.
Separatist impulse in the South-East in particular has not abated in spite of the proscription of IPOB and the detention of its leader. Contentions along sectional or ethnic divides should therefore be explored for mutual conversations to change the narratives around the fault-lines that underscore the continued demand for genuine federalism. This imperative of conversation makes political engagement towards addressing IPOB’s dilemma germane and therefore should be explored without further prevarication.
More than hitherto, the South-East has continued to witness spiral of violence in spite of the proscription of IPOB and detention of Kanu. While the actions of the government could be deemed justifiable and irrefutably inevitable, it would thus appear that deploying political engagement as an alternative option could no longer be discountenanced and in fact ought to be top on the agenda of the new administration. Navigating the legal conundrum around IPOB and Kanu’s continued detention particularly with regards to the penchant for disobeying court orders by the government further makes a political solution imperative. Stakeholders must explore political resolution in the interest of peace and stability; particularly in the South-East. It has become a matter of utmost imperative for the leadership of IPOB and particularly the embattled front-runner, Kanu to rethink the secessionist agenda and embrace dialogue as the ultimate steps towards resolving the present stalemate.
It must be reiterated that secessionist agitation offends the spirit of the 1999 Constitution and poses threats to the sovereignty of the Nigerian State. Notwithstanding, the federal government, in exercise of the responsibility to protect the corporate existence of the country, has a primary duty to address issues bordering on agitations including engaging with separatist campaigners. Adopting legal options or deploying punitive measures would not extinguish deep-seated issues that underpin agitations. Therefore, non-violent agitation for self-determination should be explored by the government for healthy conversation to imbue democracy for inclusive initiatives that promote peace, progress and national development.
Finally, it is high time IPOB moderates its campaigns and adopts a more persuasive and less combative approach in its agitation. IPOB can yet play a crucial role in the push for more inclusive integration of the Igbo and the South-East within Nigeria’s polity. While it must be admitted that the unpleasant happenings of the recent time have further deepened the wounds, the prospects for healing should however be embraced without further delay in the collective interest of the country.
The Guardian
