The conviction and life‑sentence of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu by a Federal High Court in Abuja has pushed Nigeria into yet another tense national conversation. Coming at a time of severe economic hardship, rising insecurity and growing discontent with governance, the judgement has not only legal implications, but also deep political, economic and social consequences.
Among the most prominent reactions is that of former Anambra State governor and 2023 presidential candidate, Peter Obi, who released a carefully worded statement titled “Kanu’s Conviction: At a Time Like This.” In it, he expresses concern that, rather than easing tension, the development may further inflame grievances, and he calls for political dialogue, reconciliation and a search for lasting peace.
Who Is Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and Why His Case Matters
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a separatist organisation that has campaigned for an independent state of Biafra to be carved out of Nigeria’s South‑East and parts of the South‑South. For many of his supporters, Kanu represents long‑standing grievances over perceived political marginalisation, economic exclusion and historical injustice in the region.
His activism has always been controversial. Supporters see him as a self‑determination advocate drawing global attention to the plight of his people. Critics, including many in government, view some of his rhetoric and actions as incitement, and blame IPOB activities for violence, attacks on security personnel, and disruptive sit‑at‑home orders that have hurt local economies.
Kanu’s legal journey predates this latest conviction. He was first arrested in 2015 on charges including treasonable felony and terrorism. After being granted bail in 2017, he left the country following a military operation at his family home. In 2021 he was brought back to Nigeria from Kenya in a highly contested operation that courts in both Nigeria and Kenya have since described as unlawful or unconstitutional rendition. That controversy has hovered over the trial for years, fuelling debates about due process, human rights and the rule of law.
Against this backdrop, his conviction is not just the end of a high‑profile court case; it is now a symbol of the wider conversation about how Nigeria manages dissent, identity politics and national unity.
Inside the Conviction and Sentencing
The Federal High Court judgement found Nnamdi Kanu guilty on multiple terrorism‑related counts. The charges centred largely on his broadcasts and directives as IPOB leader, including allegations that his statements incited attacks on security forces and civilians, and that enforcement of sit‑at‑home orders contributed to violence and economic losses in parts of the South‑East.
Prosecutors argued that these actions went beyond legitimate political agitation and amounted to terrorism under Nigerian law. They reportedly sought the maximum penalty, including the possibility of a death sentence, citing the gravity of the alleged offences and their impact on lives and property.
In delivering judgement, the trial judge convicted Kanu on the terrorism counts and sentenced him to life imprisonment. While emphasising that the right to self‑determination is recognised internationally as a political right, the court stressed that any pursuit of that right must be carried out within the framework of the Nigerian constitution and laws. Anything outside that framework, the court held, is illegal.
For the federal government and its supporters, the conviction is evidence that “the law has taken its course.” They argue that the state must demonstrate that incitement to violence, attacks on public institutions and extra‑legal enforcement of shutdowns carry consequences. For them, the judgement sends a signal that no one, no matter how popular, is above the law.
But this is only one part of the story. For many others, especially in the South‑East and in human‑rights circles, the case has always been about much more than the criminal charges. It is about how the Nigerian state responds to grievances, what kind of political community Nigeria wants to be, and whether coercion can truly deliver lasting peace.
Peter Obi’s Statement: A Call for Wisdom, Empathy and Political Solutions
In his reaction, Peter Obi frames Kanu’s conviction as a moment that should make every “well‑meaning Nigerian pause and reflect.” He situates the judgement within a broader national crisis: widespread poverty, inflation, joblessness, insecurity and a growing sense that governance is not working for ordinary citizens.
Rather than celebrate the outcome, Obi warns that the development may “only aggravate” existing tensions instead of reducing them. He reiterates a position he has held for years: that Kanu should never have been arrested in the first place, and that his arrest, prolonged detention and now conviction reflect a failure of leadership and a misreading of the underlying issues.
Key elements of Obi’s message include:
- Dialogue over force: He argues that genuine dialogue, constructive engagement and inclusive governance are the most effective tools for addressing deep political grievances. Coercion, in his view, should be a last resort – used only “when reason has been exhausted.” In Kanu’s case, he believes reason was neither fully explored nor exhausted.
- Acknowledging legitimate concerns: Obi notes that the concerns Kanu raised were not obscure or impossible to resolve. Issues of marginalisation, underdevelopment and political exclusion in the South‑East have long been documented. In a functional society, he suggests, such grievances should be met with dialogue and reform, not primarily with force.
- Beyond mechanical application of the law: While some will insist that “the law has taken its course,” Obi argues that leadership demands more than a rigid, mechanical application of statutes. Around the world, he notes, governments often adopt political solutions – negotiated settlements, amnesty programs or other non‑judicial remedies – when legal processes alone cannot secure peace and stability.
- A plea for reconciliation and healing: Obi’s statement ultimately calls for healing over hostility, reconciliation over retaliation, and dialogue over division. He urges leaders to demonstrate justice, fairness and compassion, so that every Nigerian – including those who feel sidelined – can feel heard, valued and safe.
By positioning his reaction this way, Obi is not merely commenting on a court case; he is offering a broader critique of how the Nigerian state manages conflict and a roadmap towards a more inclusive political settlement.
Economic Hardship and Insecurity: Why Timing Matters
The phrase “at a time like this” in Obi’s statement is not rhetorical. It reflects the reality that many Nigerians are currently facing some of the toughest economic and security conditions since the return to democracy in 1999.
Inflation has eroded purchasing power, food and fuel prices have spiked, unemployment and underemployment remain high, and insecurity in various regions – from banditry and kidnapping to communal clashes – continues to disrupt daily life and business. Families are cutting back essentials, small businesses are struggling, and investor confidence is fragile.
In such an environment, any major political or legal decision that affects a sensitive region or identity group is likely to reverberate beyond the courtroom. Many citizens worry that Kanu’s conviction could be interpreted by some as a further sign of exclusion or targeted injustice, potentially deepening mistrust.
From a governance perspective, this is a critical risk. A country already grappling with macroeconomic instability and security challenges cannot afford additional large‑scale unrest. This is why Obi’s emphasis on timing and tone – urging leaders to choose de‑escalation and dialogue – is significant.
For businesses, investors and international partners watching Nigeria, the handling of this case sends signals about political stability, respect for human rights and the predictability of the rule of law. Those factors, in turn, influence investment decisions, cost of capital, and broader economic prospects.
Law, Justice and the Limits of Coercion
It is important to recognise that terrorism laws exist to protect citizens and institutions from violence. States have a responsibility to prevent attacks, punish atrocities and deter those who would choose weapons over ballots. The Nigerian government, like others around the world, is legally and morally obliged to safeguard lives and property.
However, experience from many countries shows that coercion alone rarely resolves deeply rooted political conflicts. Where grievances are tied to questions of identity, representation, fairness and historical injustice, the over‑reliance on force can produce the opposite of the intended outcome: grievances deepen, narratives of victimhood harden, and moderates lose ground to hardliners.
This is the tension at the heart of the Kanu case. On one side, there is a legal judgement that affirms the state’s authority to punish what the court has found to be terrorism‑related acts. On the other side, there is a political reality in which millions of people in the South‑East feel that their concerns have not been adequately addressed.
Peter Obi’s argument is that a wise leadership would have leaned more heavily on political and diplomatic tools – structured dialogue, reform, power‑sharing, and visible developmental commitments – while still enforcing the law where clear crimes are proven. In his view, Nigeria chose to dig deeper into a hole instead of looking for a way out.
Political Solutions: Lessons from Other Conflicts
Around the world, many nations have confronted similar dilemmas. In some cases, governments that initially relied heavily on force later shifted towards political settlements once they realised that military or purely legal victories could not deliver sustainable peace.
Examples include:
- Amnesty and reintegration programmes used to address insurgencies or militancy, combining security operations with compensation, training and development opportunities.
- Truth and reconciliation processes, which focus on restorative justice, acknowledgment of wrongs and institutional reform rather than purely punitive measures.
- Devolution, constitutional reforms and power‑sharing arrangements designed to give marginalised regions a stronger voice and stake in the system.
While every country’s context is unique, the underlying lesson is that societies are most stable when grievances are heard and addressed early, and when citizens feel they have peaceful, democratic channels to pursue change.
Obi’s call for a political solution in the Kanu case aligns with this global experience. He is not arguing that Nigeria should ignore its laws, but that it should deploy its full toolkit – legal, political and moral – in the service of long‑term peace.
The Role of the Presidency, Council of State and Elder Statesmen
A central part of Obi’s message is directed at key national institutions and figures. He explicitly calls on:
- The Presidency – to show leadership that prioritises cohesion over confrontation, and to consider political options that can de‑escalate tensions while preserving the authority of the state.
- The Council of State – a constitutional advisory body made up of current and former leaders – to deliberate on the broader implications of the conviction and explore pathways to reconciliation.
- Credible elder statesmen and women – people who command respect across regional and political lines – to step forward, mediate and push for a solution that honours justice but also heals wounds.
These appeals recognise that some decisions go beyond what courts and security agencies can resolve. They require moral authority, cross‑partisan consensus and a clear sense that national unity is more important than short‑term political advantage.
By urging these institutions and personalities to “rise to the occasion,” Obi is effectively saying that Nigeria is at a crossroads: it can either double down on a path that risks deeper division, or seize the moment to rebuild trust through bold, inclusive decisions.
Why This Moment Matters for Every Nigerian
Regardless of how one feels about Nnamdi Kanu, IPOB, or the idea of Biafra, the current situation raises questions that affect every Nigerian:
- How does our country treat dissenting voices?
- Can people raise uncomfortable questions about federalism, equity and representation without being branded enemies of the state?
- Do citizens feel there is a level playing field?
- Are laws enforced consistently across regions, ethnic groups and political affiliations, or do some feel selectively targeted?
- Are we building institutions that command trust?
- Confidence in courts, security agencies and political leaders is crucial for stability. Perceptions of bias or impunity erode that trust.
- Can we disagree without violence?
- A mature democracy allows strong disagreement, protests and contentious debates without sliding into conflict.
The answers to these questions will shape not only how the Kanu case is remembered, but also how future generations experience Nigeria’s democracy.
The conviction of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on terrorism‑related charges is a watershed moment. For the government, it is a legal victory that underscores the state’s power to prosecute what it sees as threats to national security. For many others, it is a painful reminder of unresolved grievances and the limits of coercion.
Peter Obi’s intervention does not erase the court’s decision, nor does it pretend that the issues in the South‑East are simple. Instead, it offers a different lens: one that sees this moment as an opportunity to choose healing over hostility, reconciliation over retaliation, and dialogue over division.
He calls on Nigerians to remain optimistic that peace and reconciliation are still possible, and urges the Presidency, the Council of State and respected statesmen to pursue a lasting political solution. That path will require courage, honesty and compromise from all sides.
As the country absorbs the implications of the judgement, one thing is clear: Nigeria cannot afford to keep “digging deeper” into division. The real test of leadership now is whether those in authority can transform a polarising verdict into a turning point for justice, inclusion and lasting peace.
