He was convicted on all charges and sentenced to life imprisonment with other tenured sentences running concurrently.
To some people, the judge was too lenient and should have delivered the full wrath of the law (death sentence) but to others it was a miscarriage of justice and further validation of the marginalization the IPOB leader dedicated himself to.
Before the delivery of the judgment, there was a spike in reported incidents of insecurity across the country.
Without any deliberate attempt at stage-setting and with significance unbeknownst to many, his conviction and sentencing became another important inflection point in the country’s battle to eliminate organized insecurity and protect national identity and sovereignty
Post conviction and sentencing, some interesting questions and conspiracy theories have been floating around the ether. All of them presented moral superiority and deep convictions of their respective opinions and positions.
Let us review.
Question: Was Nnamdi Kanu guilty of the offenses he was accused of?
Answer: Yes. He was accused of organizing and inciting violence against the people and nation of Nigeria. He was accused of inciting the killing of members of law enforcement. He called for violence against the state and its legal authorities. He broadcast secessionist ideas via an illegal radio station. The damning truth is that there is too much publicly available evidence that irrefutably affirms his guilt and justifies his sentencing.
The harsh truth is that his conviction and sentencing are some of the best antidotes to remedy the insecurity in the country across all regions and states.
As I mentioned earlier, the country experienced a recent rise in insecurity incidents. The overwhelming majority called and are calling, for the administration of justice. How would it seem, having caught one of the leaders of one of the groups driving insecurity in the country, he/she is released on sympathetic or political grounds because ‘his people’ think he was ‘just slightly misunderstood and meant no harm’? Does this mean our calls for ‘justice’ are only for when the ‘justice’ favors our bias? What of those who lost lives, loved ones, and property and suffered psychological trauma because of the acts of these terrorists?
This brings up other questions to each of which I will provide considered opinions.
Do we want to punish insecurity, or do we want to reward and deify it?
In Nigeria, inciting someone to commit a capital offense is treated as a felony and can result in the same punishment as if the person had committed the act themselves. This is because the law considers the inciter as an accomplice, charged with abetting or counseling the commission of the crime, which is an inchoate offense with its own set of consequences.
The Criminal Code specifies that a person who incites others to commit acts of mutiny or treason is guilty of a felony and can be imprisoned for life.
The Criminal Code also states that anyone who counsels or procures another person to commit an offense is guilty of the same kind of offense and is liable to the same punishment as if they had committed it themselves.
Thus, Nnamdi Kanu is guilty. But what about the likes of Gumi and Igboho? Why have they not been prosecuted and sentenced?
First off, it is immaterial if other alleged offenders have not been caught or prosecuted. No reasonable human being would free a thief he was able to apprehend because he could not catch other members of the gang.
But more to the point, neither Gumi nor Igboho crossed the Rubicon that Nnamdi Kanu dared and even recklessly abused. Has Gumi or Igboho ever called for the killing of innocent people to pacify the death of an associate? Or ordered their supporters to kill law enforcement officers and destroy public properties? Or declared the sovereignty of another country in Nigeria?
These offenses are clear acts of treason. And it wasn’t just that he committed these acts. It was exacerbated by his sheer arrogance, making a mockery of the entire country.
The irony is that those who think justice was not properly served are actually looking for justification for the same marginalization they claim to be against. If you don’t want to be marginalized from national issues, why desire to be marginalized from justice?
If we are so concerned about insecurity, the conviction and sentencing of anyone involved should be considered a collective win!
Would any of us exonerate a man who, due to some disagreements between both of you, leverages his influence by inciting boys in the area to invade your house, kill and maim your loved ones, and raze your property, just because he says his was not the murdering hands?
Question: If he is guilty, why didn’t the judge deliver the death sentence? Could he claim a wrong conviction?
Answer: No. The law is very clear. It contains provisions for both and leaves the application to the judge’s discretion.
The harsh truth is that his death now would give him a massive win. It risks the chance of making him a martyr and further aggravating the insecurity situation in the country. Thus, the life sentencing also demystifies him and sends a chilling message to others. In fact, many of these criminals know that Nnamdi Kanu was both lucky and unlucky. He is lucky because he still gets to share this planet with others, although on less auspicious terms. He is unlucky because his arrest, conviction, and sentencing derobes him assumed invincibility and affirms the supremacy of the state.
Question: Would a political solution granting some form of amnesty not be a better rallying call for national unity?
Answer: No. A political solution will only serve to ridicule the justice system. Anything aside from a conviction and sentencing would literally cede authority and justification to criminals once they can hide under the guise of social activism.
Further, Kanu, for all his influence, lacks political capital. He exerts authority through fear, threats of violence, and actual, brutal violence by proxies. A wiser man would have leveraged his influence for political capital to push the cause he believes in, but I guess that path is more rigorous, mentally demanding, and often requiring democratic collaboration and accountability.
Kanu sees himself as a demi-god who is all-wise and all-knowing. It takes consensus to build a progressive political base. Fear and violence can only serve so much.
Perhaps the most telling of all is that he did not buy political relevance or mileage for the people he claimed to be leading. He was at the forefront of insulting and denigrating other ethnicities. His actions endangered and ostracized the Igbo ethnicity politically. Basically, he ruined the SE’s political capital.
Question: But his extradition was illegal, and thus, he should not be tried?
Answer: Wrong. The law is clear that once an arrest has been made and charges filed, the mode of arrest is secondary and does not invalidate the trial.
The harsh truth is that Nnamdi Kanu had jumped bail prior. And he violated his bail conditions. He was still inciting violence in Nigeria even when he was not in the country. He had burnt every goodwill in the criminal justice code.
Question: Is this whole sentencing thing just an elaborate political maneuver to secure SE votes in the 2027 presidential elections? Won’t the incumbent grant him a pardon?
Answer: This is an interesting conspiracy theory. However, it has some glaring holes.
The harsh truth is that Nigeria’s political landscape has settled, and the overwhelming force, by a wide margin, is the APC. The principal opposition is trying to determine which form of suicide by ridicule would be most entertaining. Principal opposition leaders are being exposed as self-serving and quickly losing political base and goodwill. Proposals for political alliances via a mega opposition party are proving to be contests of ambitions and ego. The rhetoric about saving Nigeria is not matched with the humility and presence of mind to collaboratively promote the best candidate. Everyone thinks they are the best. Defection has become an epidemic ravaging big and small political structures.
Essentially, at this moment, there is no viable opposition at the federal level. So, why play an elaborate gimmick that could backfire spectacularly?
Not only would it undermine the government and the ruling party, it would also insult the spirit of those who had lost lives, loved ones, property, and peace of mind due to his incitement.
There is also the significant risk of creating an opportunity for opposition through disillusionment. There are many who support the arrest, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing of Nnamdi Kanu. Many are his kin and kindred. Granting him any kind of pardon as a political play invalidates their pain and convictions. Their reaction will be unforgiving and spiteful.
The man himself has not demonstrated anything to suggest he is contrite or sober. He was still playing games (dancing around rather than presenting his defense, firing his lawyers, etc.), unruly, unrepentant, insulting, and unjustifiably arrogant! Why would anyone believe he can be trusted to keep his part of the deal, if ever such was offered?
Recall that he escaped from Nigeria and could have been living a quiet life of meditation. But he was easily seduced to go to Kenya where he was apprehended. He did not demonstrate a cool head at any point during the entire saga from the commencement of his agitations to his trial and sentencing. Rude. Uncouth. Even borderline unbalanced.
That is a dangerous man to try to cut any deals with. His unpredictable and unstable character are red flags in any scenario.
Finally, and most damning of all, the fact that he ruined the South East’s political capital means there are precious little politically beneficial trade-offs. By isolating the South East, he cast a shadow over the region as political analysts need to find alternatives to the votes of the region. He shattered an already broken mirror.
It is unfortunate that political leaders from the ethnicity and region rarely speak the truth about him and the disastrous effects his campaign has had. Perhaps it is out of fear for life or for political exigencies due to his influence and the effect it could have on votes and elections.
Even now, some are still defending and consequently damaging the already impaired political capital. Being a social activist does not give anyone the right to incite violence and deaths against Nigerians.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is a two-faced demon hiding behind a blood-soaked toothpick.
The harsh truth is that most of the political players would rather use his closure for selfish political mileage rather than seeing it as an opportunity to reintegrate the ethnicity and region under the common banner of social and economic progress.
