By Abiola Olawale
The Nigerian Presidency has clarified its stance on the different legal treatments of separatist agitators Nnamdi Kanu and Sunday “Igboho” Adeyemo, asserting that the nature of their actions, methods, and the resulting impact on national security create a fundamental distinction between the two cases.
The Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Public Communication and Orientation, Sunday Dare, rejected suggestions in some quarters that there is no distinction between the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Kanu, and the Yoruba nation campaigner, Igboho.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, Dare maintained that there is “no basis for comparison” between the two figures, stressing that their actions, methods, and consequences are fundamentally different.
Dare argued that Kanu, who was recently convicted on terrorism charges by a Federal High Court in Abuja and is serving a life sentence, engaged in insurrection and armed confrontation against the Nigerian state.
He said this resulted in the deaths of more than 700 innocent people and triggered economic paralysis across the South-East.
By contrast, Dare contended that Igboho’s activism was centred on defending communities in the South-West against criminal activities attributed to rogue herders, alongside peaceful agitation for a Yoruba nation.
The statement reads in part: “Nnamdi Kanu’s IPOB movement involved elements widely associated with insurrection and confrontation against the Nigerian state.”
“This included enforcement of ‘sit-at-home’ orders (often through threats and violence), resulting in numerous deaths (reports cite over 700 fatalities linked to enforcement clashes and defiance killings).”
“Other inimical activities include attacks on security forces, destruction of public infrastructure, and the formation of armed groups like ESN.
“Kanu’s rhetoric and actions escalated to calls that many viewed as inciting violence against the state and even against his own people in the South East who defied orders.
“In contrast, Sunday Igboho’s activism centered on defending Yoruba communities, primarily against alleged killings, kidnappings, and farm destruction by suspected herders. He focused on self-defense, warding off criminal elements from Yoruba land.
“Igboho also deployed peaceful agitation for Yoruba self-determination/Oduduwa Nation without establishing a militia to fight the Nigerian military, without ordering attacks on police/soldiers, and without imposing paralysing enforcement measures like sit-at-home orders that harmed civilians or the economy in his region.
“The line is clear: one crossed into armed rebellion and violent enforcement that affected (and sometimes harmed) his own ethnic group, while the other remained largely defensive and localised against perceived external threats, without the same level of state-targeted insurgency.”
