The Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Public Communication and Orientation, Sunday Dare, on Tuesday dismissed the comparison between the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, who is currently serving a life imprisonment for terrorism charges and the Yoruba nation activist, Chief Sunday Adeyemo, popularly known as Sunday Igboho.
He contended that while Kanu, recently convicted for terrorism by a Federal High Court in Abuja, engaged in insurrection and armed confrontation with the Nigerian state, which resulted in the killing of more than 700 innocent people, economic paralysis of South East states, Igboho’s activism centred on defending South West communities against criminal activities of rogue herders and peaceful agitation for Yoruba nation.
In a statement forwarded to journalists, Dare clarified that there is no basis for comparison between the duo, just as he underscored the need to highlight the differences for better public understanding.
The statement read, “Nnamdi Kanu’s IPOB movement involved elements widely associated with insurrection and direct 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 centred on defending Yoruba communities, primarily against alleged killings, kidnappings, and farm destruction by suspected herders. He focused on self-defence, 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.
“Public discourse should stop equating the two; the contexts, methods, and consequences are fundamentally different.”
(Tribune)
Leave a Reply