Kanu Conviction Sparks ‘Ethnic War’ Claim

The recent conviction and life sentence handed down to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), on terrorism charges by Justice Omotosho has ignited a firestorm of condemnation from a prominent Igbo socio-cultural organization, the Igbo National Council (INC).

In a strongly worded press statement, the INC rejected the verdict as an act of profound judicial injustice, immediately framing the conviction as part of a larger, coordinated ethnic campaign against the Igbo people within Nigeria. This forceful reaction underscores the deep political and emotional sensitivities surrounding Kanu’s case, which has long been viewed in the Southeast as a barometer of the region’s relationship with the central Nigerian state.

Chilos Godsent, the National President of the INC, who signed the statement, did not mince words, describing the judgment as an “unmerited conviction.” He asserted that the life imprisonment sentence was a clear “indication of the continuation of a coordinated ethnic war against the Igbos in Nigeria.”

This declaration moves the critique of the judgment beyond mere legal grounds, placing it squarely within the context of Nigeria’s fraught ethnic politics and historical grievances. The INC’s analysis suggests a perception that the prosecution and sentencing of Kanu are not purely matters of counter-terrorism law but are fundamentally ethno-political in nature, designed to suppress and punish the aspirations and political expression of the Igbo race.

The group stated that its decision to condemn the judgment followed a thorough analysis of the circumstances leading to the sentencing. This internal review led the INC to express a “profound feeling” that the verdict was undeniable proof that an “ethno-political war against the Igbo race is being overstretched.” By employing such charged language, the INC is attempting to mobilize political opinion and draw national and international attention to what it perceives as systemic discrimination and persecution targeting the Igbo people. This assertion challenges the Nigerian government’s narrative that Kanu’s prosecution is a simple matter of law enforcement against treason and terrorism.

In a move intended to highlight what the INC sees as judicial selectivity, the group issued a direct challenge to the Nigerian Judiciary. The INC demanded that the judiciary should also vigorously prosecute the elements of Boko Haram and ISWAP militias, groups that have, in their words, “continued to terrorize and kill Nigerians with reckless impunity.”

This juxtaposition seeks to draw a sharp contrast between the swift and heavy-handed conviction of Kanu and what many in the South-East view as a slow, often ineffective, judicial and security response to violent extremist groups operating predominantly in the North. The implication is that the law is being applied unfairly, with harsher penalties and greater zeal reserved for political agitators from the South-East than for actual armed terrorists in other regions.

The INC explicitly labeled the judgment as “politically motivated,” thereby stripping it of any perceived judicial impartiality. Consequent upon this conviction that the judgment was driven by political expediency rather than pure legal necessity, the group issued an urgent appeal to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. They called upon the President to “quickly intervene and grant Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Presidential Pardon.”

The reasoning behind this appeal is pragmatic: the INC argues that a presidential intervention is necessary “in order to reduce rising tension in South East Region of Nigeria.” This suggests that the group views the conviction as an inflammatory act that will inevitably lead to instability, and that only an act of presidential clemency can defuse the mounting political and social crisis in the region.

The conviction of the IPOB leader has long been a deeply divisive issue, central to the renewed clamour for self-determination and the political turmoil in the South-East. For a significant segment of the Igbo populace, Kanu represents a champion against perceived marginalization, while the Nigerian government views him as a separatist leader whose activities threaten national unity and stability.

The INC’s condemnation of the life sentence as a continuation of ethnic injustice forces the Tinubu administration to address not just the legal status of Kanu, but the underlying anxieties of a major ethnic group concerning their place and treatment within the Nigerian federation.

The call for a Presidential Pardon now places a considerable political burden on President Tinubu, who must weigh the principle of judicial independence against the political imperative of restoring peace and confidence in a perpetually restive region. The INC has effectively transformed Kanu’s legal defeat into a fresh rallying point for ethno-political agitation, demanding that the President choose reconciliation over confrontation.