By Samuel Marshall
A fresh wave of controversy has trailed Omoyele Sowore’s recent interventionist protest calling for the release of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. The demonstration, which carried the hashtag #FreeNnamdiKanuNow, has stirred resentment among sections of the Igbo community, many of whom perceive it as an unsolicited intrusion into what they regard as a regional and highly delicate affair.
Sowore’s campaign, aimed at drawing national and international attention to Kanu’s continued incarceration since 2017, has divided opinion. While some commend his activism as an act of cross-ethnic solidarity, others within the South East describe it as a “misplaced intervention” by a non-Igbo activist in an issue they insist the region is capable of handling internally.
Critics argue that Sowore’s involvement risks aggravating tensions rather than easing them. “His role feels like an unsolicited injection into a body that naturally rejects foreign substances,” remarked one commentator, reflecting a widespread sentiment that the agitation for Kanu’s release should remain an in-house matter for the Igbo leadership.
A former Deputy Senate President had, as far back as 2021, cautioned against “external agitators complicating an already delicate situation in the East.” Similarly, the late Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, former President-General of Ohanaeze Ndigbo Worldwide, once warned outsiders not to “politicise or hijack the plight of Nnamdi Kanu for personal popularity,” stressing that “the Igbo nation has its own mechanisms for dialogue and negotiation with the Federal Government.”
One of Kanu’s sureties and a consistent advocate for his legal rights reaffirmed that South East leaders were already “engaging the matter politically and diplomatically” rather than resorting to public demonstrations led by external actors.
In a more strident tone, Barrister Darlington Agumuo, a legal practitioner and political affairs analyst from the region, declared: “If anything happens to Nnamdi Kanu now, we should blame Sowore. The efforts Igbos have been making would have yielded more plausible results if allowed to sail through. But Sowore has carried his youthful exuberance and rascality to spoil our show.”
A respected monarch from Aguleri also weighed in, asserting that “no one from outside Alaigbo can feel the pain of our people more deeply than we do,” adding that dialogue, not dramatic protests, remains the most viable route to peace and justice.
Echoing this conciliatory tone, Governor Charles Chukwuma Soludo of Anambra State stated in a recent interview: “In a fair and equitable Nigeria, the Igbo man has a great future. God did not make a mistake in putting us together as one nation, and we must exploit all opportunities available to us.”
Meanwhile, the political temperature surrounding Kanu’s detention has been further heightened by the emergence of new socio-cultural groups with contrasting positions. One such organisation, Rescue Alaigbo, staged a counter-demonstration alongside Sowore’s protest, displaying banners bearing names and photographs of individuals allegedly killed in violent attacks across the South East. The group blamed IPOB’s paramilitary wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), for the unrest and opposed Kanu’s release.
Another organisation, the Mega National Movement for Good Governance (MMMGG) – led by an Igbo activist – also mobilised supporters in opposition to Sowore’s demonstration, insisting that Kanu’s trial must continue in court rather than in the streets.
For its part, IPOB has accused internal saboteurs and political elites of attempting to undermine the movement. Its spokesman, Comrade Emma Powerful, alleged that “Minister of Works, Dave Umahi, is sponsoring a fake Ohanaeze faction to discredit the peaceful protest calling for Kanu’s release.”
The unfolding debate underscores a deepening ideologic
al and political divide within the Igbo elite – between those who see Sowore’s campaign as an expression of solidarity and those who view it as an unwelcome interference. Beyond the immediate controversy, many analysts believe the episode has reignited broader questions about marginalisation, justice, and the South East’s standing within the Nigerian federation.
Ultimately, the agitation over Nnamdi Kanu’s fate – whether championed from within or inspired from outside – highlights the enduring complexities of Nigeria’s identity politics, where ethnic sensitivities, power struggles, and national unity remain in a fragile and perpetual balance.***
