Kanu And Ekpa: The International Dimension, And Why Any Illegal Connection Of The Two Will Fail

 Kanu And Ekpa: The International Dimension, And Why Any Illegal Connection Of The Two Will Fail  Another clearly pronounced international d...

 Kanu And Ekpa: The International Dimension, And Why Any Illegal Connection Of The Two Will Fail 

Another clearly pronounced international dimension of the Biafran struggle is in the contrasting cases of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and Simon Ekpa. While both men are connected to the cause of Biafra, the global community and all people of good conscience have treated their circumstances very differently, and rightly so. Kanu remains at the centre of an unresolved international human rights dispute, whereas Ekpa’s conviction has been seen as justice served against a man sponsoring and coordinating criminality in the Southeast of Nigeria.

Nnamdi Kanu’s case is fundamentally political. His arrest and extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria in 2021 has been pronounced illegal by courts, and it has drawn condemnation from human rights organisations, foreign parliamentarians, and diaspora groups. His continued detention, equally, has been described as unlawful under international law, with concerns raised about his right to a fair trial, his deteriorating health, and the implications for Nigeria’s adherence to global conventions. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has even called for his unconditional release, confirming that Kanu’s case has transcended Nigeria’s borders and entered the arena of global human rights advocacy.

Simon Ekpa, by contrast, has been widely accused of using the Biafra cause as a cover to unleash terror on innocent civilians. From his comfortable base in Finland, he repeatedly issued sit-at-home orders, many of which led to killings, destruction of property, and economic paralysis across the Southeast of Nigeria. His conviction by a Finnish court is therefore seen by many as overdue justice; an international system holding to account a man whose online rhetoric and verified criminal participations translated into bloodshed on the streets of Igbo land.

The international community’s muted response to Ekpa’s conviction is telling. There have been no outcries about political persecution, no petitions to the UN, and no claims of a witch-hunt. Instead, the judgment has been met with relief by those who have suffered from the violence linked to his directives. This silence shows that the world recognises a clear difference between a freedom fighter with a legitimate case for self-determination and a sponsor of chaos who has turned a just cause into a criminal enterprise.

Politically, Kanu remains the recognised leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra(IPOB) and the face of Biafra’s demand for a referendum. His case continues to force Nigeria into the uncomfortable position of explaining to the world why it has chosen repression over dialogue. Ekpa, on the other hand, has been widely disowned by pro-Biafra groups and elders who view his actions as sabotaging the movement, deepening insecurity, and staining the credibility of the struggle before the international community.

In the end, the international dimension of Kanu and Ekpa’s cases could not be more different. Kanu’s legal battle is a question of justice, human rights, and the legitimacy of Biafra’s demand for self-determination. Ekpa’s conviction, meanwhile, is a clear message that criminality, even when cloaked in political rhetoric, will not be tolerated.

These two cases present Nigeria and its Judiciary with the choice to separate genuine agitation from violent criminality, and to engage meaningfully with the real issues driving the call for Biafra. Justice James Omotosho must note that Nigeria's constant disobedience to court orders and failure to respect even its own laws have not been to its best interest. As the current presiding Judge, Omotosho must be man enough to stand for the right, unlike those that handled the IPOB Leader's case before him. 

Family Writers Press International