Kanu's Struggle For Biafra Self-Determination Is Legitimate And Guaranteed By Nigerian & International Laws

Kanu's Struggle For Biafra Self-Determination Is Legitimate And Guaranteed By Nigerian & International Laws It is often said that in...

Kanu's Struggle For Biafra Self-Determination Is Legitimate And Guaranteed By Nigerian & International Laws

It is often said that in Nigeria, the constitution is like a traffic light at a busy intersection mostly ignored, except when convenient. And in the case of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), it seems the government prefers to treat the very laws it swore to uphold as a suggestion rather than a binding social cum political contract.  

From the depths of DSS detention, Kanu has once again made his unequivocal position clear;  he has the fundamental guaranteed legal rights to agitate for his people’s freedom and self-determination. Of course, this apparently may appear unacceptable to the Nigerian authorities, who believes that rights are not actually rights, but privileges that can be revoked whenever a government official has a bad day.  

In his latest courtroom legal defense, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu meticulously cited sections of the Nigerian Constitution, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and international law to prove his case. On this premises, may we take a moment to marvel at the audacity of this man, who still believes that the rule of law applies in Nigeria.  

Section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution (1999, as Amended): Freedom of Expression 

According to this highly esteemed and regularly ignored document, “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference.” 

A reasonable person might assume that advocating for self-determination falls under this provision. After all, is not expressing the desire for a separate Biafran state simply an opinion? But alas, in Nigeria, some opinions are more dangerous than others, especially if they question the unity of a nation whose very existence is constantly debated. However, let's proceed. 

Section 40: Right to Peaceful Assembly and Association 

This section vividly proclaims that: “Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular, he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests.”  

Yet, IPOB, a non-violent self-determination seeking movement, was proscribed as a terrorist organization while known terror groups roam freely, holding press conferences and even negotiating with the government. One wonders does "freedom of association" in Nigeria come with fine print that excludes groups demanding accountability?  

International Laws: When Nigeria Remembers It Belongs to the World 

Now, may we zoom out and take-off into global perspective on the subject matter. Nigeria, as a signatory to numerous international treaties, ought to respect self-determination movements. But as we have established, "ought to" means little when power is at stake. 

Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. 

This article states: “All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.” 

This means that if a group of people feel marginalized and seek political self-determination, international law permits them to voice this demand. But in Nigeria, saying "Biafra" out loud is enough to get you labeled a terrorist faster than actual terrorists with AK-47s assault rifles.

The United Nations Charter on Self-Determination (Article 1, Clause 2) 

The UN Charter, which Nigeria enthusiastically signed (perhaps without reading), states:  

“The purposes of the United Nations are; to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”  

Yet, when Kanu invokes this principle, Nigeria’s response is to arrest, detain, and occasionally disappear those who agree with him. The irony here is breathtaking: Nigeria, a country that fought for independence from British rule, now criminalizes those advocating for self-determination within its borders.  

To justify its heavy-handed approach, the government has labeled IPOB a "terrorist organization," despite lacking any evidence of violence comparable to actual terror groups. The Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011, defines terrorism as acts that:  

- *Intimidate a population*

- *Destroy infrastructure or public property*

- *Harm innocent civilians* 

Obviously, IPOB’s only alleged crime appears to be waving flags and holding rallies—activities that, in saner climes, are celebrated as democratic expression. Meanwhile, groups responsible for mass kidnappings, village massacres, and bombings are invited to peace talks and given government stipends.  

The Curious Case of Selective Justice 

Now, let’s not forget the many political figures in Nigeria who have openly threatened violence if their ethnic groups were denied power. Have they been arrested? Charged with treason? Designated terrorists? Of course not! Far from it. It seems that in Nigeria, the definition of "treason" depends on who is speaking, not what is being said.   

As Kanu returns to the detention site, where he is unlawfully and unduly incarcerated - after citing laws upon laws, Nigerian laws one must hasten to add -  before hypocritical, pretentious legal luminaries of Nigerian judiciary, the world stands in awe of his optimism, courage and above all the desire of love for his people and struggles against marginalization. 

The idea that Nigeria will suddenly wake up and abide by its own constitution is, at best, a noble fantasy. The government’s approach is clear; if a law supports your rights, it will be ignored. if a law can be twisted to silence you, it will be enforced with military precision.  

In the end, the real question is not whether Nnamdi Kanu has the right to agitate for his people—he clearly does. The real question is whether Nigeria is willing to respect the very laws it claims to uphold. Judging from historical antecedents, the answer is a resounding NO!

Family Writers Press International