An industrialist and former governorship aspirant in Anambra State, Dr. Chike Obidigbo, has issued a caution to Southeast politicians regarding the ongoing agitation for the release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra.
Obidigbo expressed concern that the current approaches taken by some Igbo political elites might exacerbate Kanu’s situation rather than improve it.
In a statement released over the weekend, Obidigbo criticized certain politicians for their handling of the demand for Kanu’s release, accusing them of acting out of ignorance and seeking personal gain rather than genuinely addressing the issue. He argued that the complex nature of Kanu’s incarceration necessitates a more nuanced and diplomatic approach, rather than the politicized efforts currently underway.
Obidigbo’s statement read: “I am constrained to say that I am not comfortable with the way and manner our political elites are going about their request for the release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.”
He continued, “The sense I make of the cheap scramble by Igbo politicians to be identified in the growing calls for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s freedom from prolonged and unjust incarceration is that they are merely playing to the gallery.”
Obidigbo also pointed out that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is not the sole authority responsible for Kanu’s detention, noting that previous administrations and current legal officers are not directly accountable for Kanu’s situation. Instead, he emphasized that Kanu’s case is a security matter involving the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, and that genuine efforts to secure Kanu’s release should focus on engaging the NSA and key international actors.
He explained, “It is obvious that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is not entirely the one holding Nnamdi Kanu. It was not even former President Muhammadu Buhari or his erstwhile Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami. All the AGFs, including the current one, are mere legal officers for the government.”
Obidigbo suggested that effective advocacy for Kanu’s release should include diplomacy with international figures, such as the British and American Ambassadors, and influential global powers like China and Russia. He argued that without the involvement of these powerful nations, the struggle for a Biafran referendum and Kanu’s release will persist.
He stated, “Genuine efforts to free Kanu should be directed at the NSA, as well as the Ambassadors of Britain, USA and Ambassadors of some well-meaning, and Influential countries like China, Russia, etc.”
Obidigbo also identified the British government as a significant factor obstructing Kanu’s freedom, given that Kanu, a British citizen, acted against British economic interests in Nigeria. He criticized the British High Commissioner in Nigeria for their apparent disinterest in addressing the injustice of Kanu’s abduction and rendition.
“The British High Commissioner in Nigeria showed no interest in at least speaking up against the violent kidnap and rendition of her citizen. All the Embassy was interested was to hear Kanu renounce his dream of a Biafra, probably with a promise never to support any such agitation in future,” Obidigbo said.
Obidigbo’s remarks highlight the complexities of Kanu’s legal and political challenges, suggesting that a strategic, diplomatic approach involving international stakeholders is crucial for resolving the issues surrounding the IPOB leader’s detention.
