Biafra conundrum: Beyond Kanu’s re-arrest

Without doubt, the recent re-arrest of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), by the federal government outside the shores of Nigeria, remains the most trending news on the country across the world. In a development referred to by Nigeria’s Minister of Information and National Orientation Lai Mohammed as “one of […]

Without doubt, the recent re-arrest of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), by the federal government outside the shores of Nigeria, remains the most trending news on the country across the world. In a development referred to by Nigeria’s Minister of Information and National Orientation Lai Mohammed as “one of the most classic operations of its type in the world”, Kanu’s re-arrest was procured under circumstances which the government is still keeping under wraps. Meanwhile, he has since been re-arraigned before the court in continuation of his trial which had been stalled since 2017, when he jumped bail. Hitherto, his re-arrest was also announced at a press conference on Monday by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, who cited a litany of offences for which Kanu was earlier being tried in court, and in the course of which he jumped bail. The bail was granted him on the basis of ill-health as pleaded by his counsel. In the circumstances, he has been re-confined in lawful custody, and as far as the country’s laws are concerned, Kanu’s matter which had been hanging since he defied the orders of the high court and jumped bail, has been restored to status quo.

One interesting fallout of his re-arrest was the widespread outpouring of surprise over the development by even better placed Nigerians who should have known better. For instance the very suspect circumstances of his escape from the country in jumping bail placed questions on the Nigerian security architecture, which of course had never been in the best of operational conditions. It is therefore significant that Lai Mohammed revealed in his press conference how for some time, the Nigerian security establishment had been on Kanu’s trail, with his   re-arrest attesting to their efforts.

It may also be important to refer to two recent factors which escaped the gale of public attention in respect of Kanu’s escapades of late. First of these is the recent pronouncement by President Muhamadu Buhari that trouble makers in the country may soon get the “shock of their lives”. Invariably, Kanu happened to be one of the ‘trouble makers’ on the list of the President. Secondly is the Enugu meeting of the political leadership of the South East Zone a fortnight ago, where they denounced any secession agenda in respect of their zone. While it may be presumptuous to link these factors with the re-arrest of Kanu, they offered enough inkling that something related to him, could have been in the offing.

From henceforth however, Kanu’s future and that of whatever he represents will be determined by several factors including at least three. Firstly shall be the course of the eventual outcome of the legal processes associated with his arraignment for a complement of very serious criminal charges. He had earlier been charged for offences which carry the death penalty if convicted. While ordinarily the matter should provide enough headache for both his sponsors as well as teeming followers, suffice it for this column to rest its concern on the legal aspect at this point, as further indulgence may lead to subjudice, which is a patent illegality and offence.

However beyond the legal aspect, is the second determinant of his future which comprises the complement of domestic political fallouts from his re-arrest, given his antecedents as the leader of the proscribed IPOB, with its undeniably    considerable following in the country as well as beyond, with associated international links and clout as well. It is easily recalled that even as Kanu was not the architect of the clamour for the revival of the Biafra, his enterprise – questionable or otherwise as it may be, has endowed the campaign with significant energy and global presence that cannot be ignored both in Nigeria and elsewhere. By accident or design, he has metamorphosed into the arrow head of the hitherto rather subdued advocacy for the return of Biafra. Under his leadership of IPOB, the Biafra movement was availed a dynamic leadership with an assertive inclination to challenge the status quo, in a manner that seized the imagination of a mostly, youthful mass followership at least in the South East zone of the country, and who had carried the same fervor to different parts of the country where they settle and ply their various business activities. Hence courtesy of Kanu, the Biafra secession agenda not only assumed a front burner position in Nigeria’s national conversation. It has also earned for him an iconic status.

Thirdly is the likely backlash from the international community over the manner of his re-arrest, which until it is resolved, may largely remain one issue that swells the ever-growing dump of shenanigans by countries courtesy of the twists and turns that often dictate the unpredictable course of international diplomacy. For even as Lai Mohmmed has formally commended the re-arrest of the man Kanu in superlative terms, the silence on the modus operandi of the ‘classic operation’ gives room to a flood of speculations which if not handled properly, imposes on the administration, an unhelpful burden of integrity deficit. Evidence of the groundswell of misgivings by the Nigerian public over Lai’s ‘classic operation’ across the various shades of public opinion in the country, is the widespread concern and enquiry over how Kanu was apprehended, as well as calls that he be allowed to enjoy whatever human rights which Nigeria’s laws allow him.

Going further from the foregoing, the future of this sordid interface between Kanu and the Federal government now rests on the volition of the latter to be disposed to act with extreme discretion, in order to ensure a most beneficial outcome for the country. And such is hardly to be procured through a sabre rattling disposition, which may be the immediate attraction for all persons that nurse one aversion or the other for Kanu’s guts.

Ultimately however the point should not be lost that the inchoate disposition of various sessions of the National Assembly and in particular the docility of the present Ninth session, especially in playing the ostrich in respect of grave threats to the country and its Constitution, invariably created the breeding ground of the contradictions that spawned Kanu and his co travelers, even beyond the South East zone.  Pity!