WHY SOWORE’S ATTEMPT TO RALLY THE OPPOSITION TO FORCE PRESIDENT TINUBU TO RELEASE NNAMDI KANU IS ILL-CONCEIVED, MISCALCULATED AND WILL NOT RESONATE WITH THE MASSES

[By Dr. Ope Banwo (The Mayor of Fadeyi), Founder, Naija Lives Matter]

The Call That Sowore Expect To Stir the Streets

Omoyele Sowore, that eternal firebrand of Nigerian activism, is again raising dust. His latest crusade? The immediate release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of IPOB.

He even recently met with former President Goodluck Jonathan in Abuja, lobbied prominent politicians across party lines, and announced that Jonathan himself had agreed to speak with President Bola Tinubu on Kanu’s behalf. Sowore’s message was urgent, moral, and uncompromising:”Every leader of conscience must act now, not later. Nnamdi Kanu should be set free.”

Sure, these are Passionate words. Brave.  Noble intent. But the question remains: Is this the right battlefield for Nigeria’s opposition to stake its legitimacy and courage?

In as much as I am on record for applauding Sowore for some of his moves recently, I think this one of carrying Nnamdi Kanu’s cross is a wrong strategy and a distraction for him in his attempt to make himself a national figure for the opposition to rally around

Now let me break this down as I always do as a non-aligned commentator on national issues without fear or favour or sentiment.

Fair Trial For Detainees, Yes — But Let’s Be Real About Context

Let’s start with principle: everyone deserves a fair, open, and speedy trial. That’s constitutional, that’s moral, and that’s non-negotiable.

However, Kanu’s case is not a simple human-rights dispute. It’s a matter charged under treasonable felony, incitement, and terrorism statutes — serious allegations in any nation.

And, crucially, these are not phantom accusations pulled out of thin air. Nigerians have seen and heard the evidence with their own eyes and ears.

Videos still on YouTube show Kanu inspecting armed recruits he called the “Biafra Secret Service,” addressing them as soldiers of a coming independent Biafra.

We all watched him brandish the Biafran flag, salute formations, and promise to “defend our land by any means necessary.”

In multiple Radio Biafra broadcasts, he called for the violent breakup of Nigeria and urged Igbos to burn down Lagos and other cities if provoked.

These are not rumors whispered in beer parlors — they are on-record, documented broadcasts that every Nigerian can still replay online.

So when Sowore tries to rally the opposition to make Kanu’s continued incarceration the measuring stick of courage, it misreads both global precedent and local political psychology.

1. Detaining Suspected and Accused Insurrectionists Beyond Normal Process Isn’t a Nigerian Invention (even USA , France, Britain and other so-called democratic contrived do it routinely)

Across the globe, governments have kept high-risk detainees behind bars for years — sometimes decades — while legal processes crawl forward.

Not because democracy is dead, but because national-security cases move differently from petty theft or protest-permit violations.

And when a suspect has publicly called for violent uprising and organized a militia, as Kanu did on camera, no nation on earth releases him easily.

Since I not talk facts, not just base emotions, Let’s look at a few concrete examples:

🇺🇸 The United States — The Guantánamo Bay Detentions

After 9/11, the U.S. created Guantánamo Bay. Hundreds of men were held there without trial for over 15 years on suspicion of terrorism.

As of 2024, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged 9/11 mastermind, has been in custody for over 20 years without a concluded trial.

America — the self-proclaimed beacon of freedom — justified it as “national security necessity.”

🇫🇷 France — Long Pre-Trial Detentions in Terror Cases

France’s counter-terrorism laws allow suspects to be held for years before final adjudication.

Salah Abdeslam, the only surviving attacker from the 2015 Paris terror attacks, spent over six years in pre-trial detention before his 2022 sentencing.

Throughout that period, France — a democracy with strong human-rights credentials — defended his prolonged detention as vital to national security.

🇬🇧 United Kingdom — The Northern Ireland and Anti-Terrorism Era

During the Northern Ireland “Troubles,” Britain detained hundreds under “internment without trial.”

Even in the 2000s, the U.K.’s Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001) permitted indefinite detention of foreign suspects.

High-profile detainees like Abu Qatada, accused of inspiring terrorism, were confined for nearly eight years without final conviction.

🇮🇳 India — The Kashmir Precedent

Under India’s Public Safety Act, authorities can detain individuals for up to two years without formal charge if deemed threats to national unity.

After the revocation of Kashmir’s autonomy in 2019, figures like Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah were held for months and years under preventive detention.

🇹🇷 Turkey — The Post-Coup Crackdown

Following the 2016 coup attempt, Turkey detained tens of thousands of alleged plotters.

Selahattin Demirtaş, co-chair of the pro-Kurdish HDP party, has been imprisoned since 2016 without final judgment, despite multiple European Court rulings ordering his release.

If the U.S., France, U.K., India, and Turkey — all democracies of repute — justify prolonged detentions for people accused of incitement or terrorism, is it truly shocking that Nigeria has not rushed to free a man caught on tape recruiting soldiers for a breakaway state?

2. The Lesson: National-Security Cases Don’t Move Like Ordinary Trials

Whether in Abuja or Washington, Paris or Ankara, states treat perceived threats to national stability differently.

You can’t fight that battle as if it’s a traffic violation.

It may be unjust, it may be excessive, but it’s the global norm. And when a suspect is seen on video building a paramilitary group, vowing to burn cities and break the nation apart, the state will always plead “national security” and win the argument with most citizens.

So making the Nnamdi Kanu case the symbolic hill to test the will of the opposition again the Tinubu administration’s  is strategically unwise — because every government in the world defends such detentions on “security grounds,” and most citizens instinctively side with order over ideology.

3. Kanu’s Case Lacks the Universal Moral Clarity the Opposition Needs

The opposition’s strength lies in issues where the morality is clear and the people can relate.

Bread prices, fuel hikes, joblessness — those are fights people feel in their stomachs. Kanu’s fight is ideological, ethnic, and polarizing.

Yes, he deserves justice. But the same man told millions of followers that Nigeria must be destroyed “by any means necessary,” threatened violence against non-Igbos, and encouraged arson in Lagos as retaliation for perceived injustices.

These are documented, public outbursts that instantly alienate the neutral middle class, the Northern farmer, and even many within his own region who want reform, not rupture.

That’s political poison for anyone trying to build a national coalition.

4. There Are Better Hills for the opposition to Die On rather than carrying the cross of an ethnic irredentist and suspected insurrectionisr

My own thinking is that If the opposition truly wants to test its courage and earn credibility with ordinary Nigerians, there are plenty of nobler, unifying battles. To my mind these will in Odu’s:

1. why not choose The Cost-of-Living Meltdown as your Hill to die on?  — Stand with the hungry, not just the angry and maybe the masses will line up behind you. Not Nnamdi Kanu. Most don’t care about that

2. Why Not Choose The Power-Supply Embarrassment As Your Hill To Rally The Opposition on? — Demand electricity for 200 million people. That is a worthy cause even international govts can back you on . Not fighting for a ethnic breakaway leader wannabe

3. Why Not Choose Youth Unemployment Crisis As A Battle Cry For the Opposition ?   — Turn the frustration of 40 million jobless into a revolution of skills and opportunity.

These hills are not only morally clear but strategically smart — causes that unite, not divide; inspire, not inflame.

A movement built on these fronts will gather the masses. A movement built on the volatile symbolism of Nnamdi Kanu will scatter them.

The Mayor’s Verdict

I admire Sowore’s courage. Of late I have evne come across o admire him more and said so. Nigeria needs more men who refuse to whisper when they should roar.

But courage without calculation or taking good measure of the pulse of the masses is chaos.

The Nnamdi Kanu hill is emotional, complicated, and politically combustible — a hill where the opposition could lose both moral clarity and national empathy.

In a country battling hunger, darkness, and despair, the opposition doesn’t need symbolic martyrdom.

It needs strategy.

It needs alignment with the people’s daily pain.

So yes, fight for justice. Demand due process. But don’t mistake a complex separatist trial for the soul of the Nigerian struggle.

Some hills are meant to be climbed.

This one , someone should tell my man Sowore, you should walk around and choose a wiser battlefield. Fighting the Nnamdi Kanu battle is good, but it will not rally the nation behind you as you imagined and its a needless distraction form far weightier issues you can hold this administration responsible for.

With respect

Dr. Ope Banwo

The Mayor of Fadeyi

Attorney • Techpreneur • Political Commentator • Founder, Naija Lives Matter