The Blood of Nnamdi Kanu: Exit From Nigeria

The Blood of Nnamdi Kanu

When people speak of the blood of Nnamdi Kanu, there is no intent to place it beside the blood of Jesus — that would be blasphemous and foolish. Yet, in the political imagination of Nigeria today, Kanu’s blood is becoming a symbol of growing weight. His prolonged and directionless detention has turned him, unwillingly, into a hero. And the truth is simple: whoever spills Kanu’s blood risks bringing great misfortune upon himself and upon Nigeria. The man may be dismissed; the concerns and support he commands cannot.

Kanu is a Nigerian with secessionist aspirations — he is not alone in that. Every major ethnic group in Nigeria contains people with similar desires at local, state, and national levels. A remarkable coalition of intellectuals, Igbo and non-Igbo (including people previously hostile to Igbo causes), have demanded his release. A high court has ordered it. Still, the Government of Nigeria (GON) keeps him detained. Is this a democracy governed by the rule of law? Our doubts may differ only in degree.

Those calling Kanu a “terrorist” evade the basic question: what terrorist act has he or his group committed?
It is astonishing that certain human-rights NGOs — funded exclusively by donors who expect neutrality — demanded his detention and labelled Radio Biafra a terrorist outfit. Such organisations should be blacklisted by international donors for violating the very principles they claim to defend. Human rights must not be selective, tribalised, or manipulated for income.

Meanwhile, the GON performs its old mastery of oppression and irresponsibility. Electricity remains scarce, clean water unreliable, and students resort to robbery or prostitution to fund their education. Hundreds of thousands die yearly from road accidents and abysmal healthcare; millions face hunger. Corruption surpasses Hollywood plots. Yet somehow, Biafra and Radio Biafra rank among Nigeria’s governance priorities. What a confession of unseriousness.

Is Nnamdi Kanu Nigeria’s pressing problem? Why is the GON martyring him. I ask theis same question in my article, The Government Has Jumped Up Biafra.

What, in truth, is Nnamdi Kanu? A social entrepreneur with a radio station. His enterprise is Radio Biafra; his product is the idea of Biafra. Nothing more, nothing less — and fully within the rights affirmed by the United Nations Charter. If Gani Adams may openly call for the Oduduwa Republic, and Dokubo Asari for an Ijaw Republic, then Kanu’s advocacy cannot be an offence.

Would there be anything wrong with Radio Kanuri, Radio Tiv, Radio Urhobo, Radio Igala, or Radio Efik? Nigeria’s marginalised ethnic groups desperately need voices. Instead, a few dominant groups act as judge and jury. Kanu’s enterprise keeps the idea of Biafra alive, but the resources to bring an actual state into existence lie far beyond his reach.

We must also acknowledge something rarely admitted in public: Non-Igbos too desire Biafra’s success, because it signals their own right to seek an exit from Nigeria — as Eghosa Osaghae argued in his seminal 1999 work. Nigeria’s political economy is wincheously biased, its federalism a façade. The question rises quietly but insistently: Will Kanu’s blood one day become the catalyst of exit?

A darker possibility looms. If Kanu dies in custody, falls gravely ill, loses his mind, or meets any suspicious fate — even an unlucky snake bite — the consequences could be monumental. A martyr’s blood cannot be predicted. It multiplies itself.

Across ethnic lines, young millionaires, politicians, intellectuals, and professionals admire the status the GON has inadvertently bestowed upon him. Something unusual is happening. The desire to exit Nigeria is overwhelming. Oil money and the old machinery of the “Owners of Nigeria Technostructure” can no longer contain the pressure.

The Niger Delta is no longer silent. The feudal North is no longer unquestioning. People in these regions increasingly reject the legitimacy of the ONT-controlled GON. They are ready to take up arms.

If the government insists on keeping Kanu in detention, it is its prerogative — but a disastrously misguided one. Heavy-handedness has a long history and a predictable cost. It leads to crises that future governments cannot manage.

The real question may be the most dangerous:
Will the beginning of Nigeria’s unravelling be written in the blood of Nnamdi Kanu?

Grimot Nane