Beyond Emotion: Why calls for Nnamdi Kanu’s release need strategic logic | Magbagbeola Basit

Last week, activist Omoyele Sowore led a group of young Nigerians to protest in Abuja, demanding the release of Mr. Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). Their chants for “freedom” echoed a familiar appeal that has dominated the national conversation since Kanu’s re-arrest and trial on terrorism-related charges.

But while the moral and political arguments for freeing Kanu are loud and passionate, they often lack the most persuasive element in any negotiation with a state power — a strategic incentive.

What Does the Nigerian State Stand to Gain?

The Nigerian government, whatever its faults, operates within the logic of state security and survival. The question therefore is: what does the state stand to gain by freeing Nnamdi Kanu?

Would his release bring an end to secessionist agitation in the Southeast?
Would it help disarm the Eastern Security Network (ESN) and channel its fighters into a credible deradicalisation and reintegration process?
Would it stabilise the region and restore confidence in governance?

At the moment, no clear answers — or even proposals — exist to these questions. What is heard instead are moral pleas, political blackmail, and emotional appeals that do not engage the strategic calculus of a state that currently holds the upper hand.

The State’s Strategic Position

For the Nigerian government, Mr. Kanu’s continued detention offers a form of leverage. Despite criticism from rights groups, the state has made modest progress in curbing the spread of violent secessionist operations in the Southeast. Sporadic attacks still occur, but they no longer have the coordinated intensity seen in the early days of IPOB’s militancy.

In such a context, releasing Kanu without a structured peace framework could easily be read in Abuja as a sign of weakness — or worse, as an incentive for other separatist groups across the country to adopt violent methods to force negotiations.

Why the Call Needs a Roadmap

From a strategic standpoint, it is neither persuasive nor practical to simply demand Kanu’s release without linking it to measurable peace and security outcomes. Southeast leaders and civil society advocates who genuinely seek an end to his trial must first work on defining the terms under which his freedom could translate into stability.

That means engaging both Kanu and the Nigerian state in a credible roadmap — one that ensures he uses his influence to calm tensions, discourage armed resistance, and lead a reintegration process for aggrieved youths.

If the advocacy for Kanu’s release is to gain traction, it must evolve from a moral and emotional appeal into a strategic peace proposal. Only when the government sees a mutually beneficial pathway — one that aligns Kanu’s release with national security goals — can negotiations shift from street protests to meaningful dialogue.

Conclusion

In the politics of conflict resolution, passion must meet policy. It is not enough to chant for freedom; advocates must define what freedom will achieve. The Nigerian state will only respond to proposals that serve its stability as much as its image.

To make the call for Nnamdi Kanu’s release effective, the Southeast must move beyond emotion — and toward strategy.

Magbagbeola Basit writes from the department of Mass Communication in the University of Maiduguri.