Charting a path forward in the prolonged detention of secessionist leader, Nnamdi Kanu
Sheikh Uthman Dan Fodio (1754–1817), of the Sokoto Caliphate, is credited with having said, “Conscience is an open wound; only truth can heal it.” Riding on this timeless saying, we believe that the prolonged detention of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is fundamentally a product of a legally flawed and protracted judicial process. And due to this prolonged detention, his circumstances have metastasised from a legal challenge into a multifaceted national security challenge with significant economic consequences, particularly for the Southeast Region. Allowing this circumstance to persist will continue to engender diverse political and security challenges; hence, the need to evolve and implement an exit strategy.
At the moment, Nnamdi Kanu’s trial is with the judiciary, where charges of treasonable felony and terrorism, amongst several others, against him are being determined, but the general perception is that there is significant political interference. So far, the trial, which commenced in October 2025, does not indicate when it is to be determined following a ruling of No-Case Submission Dismissed / Ordered to Enter Defence by the Federal High Court in Abuja on Friday, September 26, 2025, and a trial commencement date scheduled on October 23, 2025. This status quo of an orchestrated, prolonged trial during which an extraordinary rendition occurred has created a stalemate, one that harbours severe national security implications, given the cult-like following that Nnamdi Kanu enjoys mainly in the South East locally and internationally and his failing health. The time for a definitive, strategic exit is now.
“For the Bola Tinubu administration, releasing Kanu prematurely carries the risk of being perceived as weak on security and could alienate political bases in other regions of the country that are severely affected by insecurity.”
Supporters of Nnamdi Kanu allege he is being persecuted and cite the refusal of the government to comply with judicial pronouncements, including a Court of Appeal ruling in October 2022, which discharged and acquitted Kanu and ruled that his forceful rendition from Kenya in June 2021 violated international and domestic laws, stripping the trial court of jurisdiction. However, they fail to acknowledge that the Supreme Court in December 2023 overturned the Court of Appeal’s acquittal, noting that the original trial charges were still pending and that a definitive finding on the manner of his rendition could only be made during the trial itself. The Supreme Court, therefore, ordered the trial to continue.
The Thursday, October 9, 2025, action by President Bola Tinubu, when he granted a Prerogative of Mercy to 175 individuals following consultation with the Council of State, however well-intentioned, has inadvertently complicated the Kanu issue. The list of beneficiaries, which included high-profile individuals convicted of serious offences—from murder to drug trafficking—creates a potent, even dangerous, moral and legal precedent. Proponents of Kanu’s release, including a broad coalition of South-East political, religious, and business leaders, can now argue forcefully that if clemency can be extended to convicted felons across the country, it should ipso facto be extended to a “political agitator” whose alleged illegal capture has already been condemned internationally. The perceived double standard—holding a political prisoner while freeing conventional criminals—only amplifies the narrative of persecution against the Southeast region and strengthens the hand of those advocating for Kanu’s unconditional release, making the continuation of his trial appear less about justice and more about political vendetta.
The looming shadow of the 2027 general elections introduces a volatile political dynamic that will inevitably impact decisions regarding Nnamdi Kanu. For the Bola Tinubu administration, releasing Kanu prematurely carries the risk of being perceived as weak on security and could alienate political bases in other regions of the country that are severely affected by insecurity. Conversely, holding him until 2027 risks sustaining the varied political and socioeconomic challenges in the South-East, which would galvanise anti-government sentiment and potentially mobilise a highly motivated and politically consequential voting block against the ruling party. The calculus for the administration is stark: leverage his release now to gain a measure of goodwill, stability, and a potential political ‘inroad’ to the South-East, or risk the crisis metastasising into a region-wide de facto vote of no confidence at the ballot box.
Read also: Court rejects police attempt to halt ‘free Nnamdi Kanu now’ protest
The best path forward is an expedited trial, where the charges against Nnamdi Kanu are conclusively determined and his innocence or guilt pretentiously pronounced by the court within 2025. Where this is not achievable, and this is likely due to the complexity of the case, the next logical path must be a decisive political solution that integrates justice with the overarching interest of national stability. A conditional presidential prerogative of mercy presents the most viable and immediate exit strategy. This option focuses on de-escalation. However, it must be executed with three non-negotiable anchors:
Strict Conditions for Freedom: The release must be contingent upon Kanu’s express, verifiable, and public commitment to a permanent, immediate, and unconditional cessation of all violence, secessionist agitation, and, critically, the crippling ‘sit-at-home’ orders. This must be guaranteed by reputable Southeast political, traditional and religious leaders. This step secures the state’s interest and removes the security threat.
Restorative Justice and Economic Revival: To ensure the resolution is acceptable to all segments of society, especially the victims of IPOB’s violence and the devastated business community, including those from Northern Nigeria, the presidential pardon must be immediately followed by the establishment of a Truth, Reconciliation, and Restorative Justice Committee for the South-East. This committee’s mandate must include documenting the impact of non-state actors (and state responses) and, most importantly, charting a pathway for economic redress and infrastructural revival for the region.
The eventual voluntary departure of Kanu from Nigerian soil—leveraging his British-Nigerian dual nationality—would be the final piece, removing the immediate focal point of the agitation and allowing the South-East to finally shift its focus from the perception of marginalisation to more progressive politics and development.
This is not a capitulation to illegality, which certainly Nnamdi Kanu has perpetrated; it is a way forward out of a self-inflicted logjam and self-harm that exchanges a symbol of division for a new beginning, which potentially will allow for reconciliation and peace. The Executive must choose the path that serves the national reconciliation and its long-term integrity over a prolonged courtroom that harbours significant vulnerabilities and risks. The price of prolonged detention is simply too high for the nation to bear.
Kabir Adamu is the Managing Director of Beacon Security and Intelligence Limited.
