In Nigeria today, the scale of injustice is not measured merely by verdicts in courtrooms, but by the glaring double standards of who is prosecuted — and who is pardoned. As Sheikh Ahmad Gumi and other extremist sympathizers walk freely or benefit from amnesty, the government brands Nnamdi Kanu, a political dissident and agitator, a “terrorist” and locks him up for life. This is not just hypocrisy; it is systemic de-marketing of the country by its own leaders and a profound moral failure. There can never be peace when there is no justice.
Kanu’s Life Sentence: The Verdict That Shook Nigeria
On 20 November 2025, the Federal High Court in Abuja sentenced Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), to life imprisonment for terrorism-related charges.
Judge James Omotosho convicted him on all seven counts, including incitement, bomb-making instructions, and issuing sit-at-home orders.
Instead of the death penalty (which prosecutors had pushed for), Omotosho opted for life imprisonment, citing global opposition to capital punishment.
On the other counts: 20 years for Count Three, 5 years for Count Seven, all to run concurrently.
The judge said Kanu’s broadcasts (especially via Radio Biafra) and his enforcement of sit-at-home orders imposed on Southeastern Nigerians undermined constitutional freedoms.
The ruling also emphasized that Kanu lacked any constitutional power to order people’s movement to be restricted.
Kanu’s legal team, led by Aloy Ejimakor, immediately announced plans to appeal the decision, arguing that not only is Kanu not a terrorist, but that the trial itself was deeply flawed.
Selective Forgiveness: The Gumi Problem and Nigeria’s Double Standard
Contrast this harsh treatment of Kanu with how the government treats other actors who arguably pose equal or greater threats — particularly Sheikh Ahmad Gumi.
The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) recently called out the federal government for its hypocrisy, demanding that Gumi be arrested and prosecuted.
According to HURIWA, it is “morally wrong” that Gumi, who has publicly defended armed groups in the Northwest, remains unpunished — while Kanu, whose movement is political, is locked away for life.
Gumi has repeatedly made media statements in favor of amnesty and integration for “mass murderers and terrorists.”
This isn’t just a matter of legal inconsistency; it’s a political signal that some forms of violence and insurgency are tolerated (or even negotiated with), while others are punished relentlessly — depending on who the government views as a threat or inconvenient voice.
Voices of Outrage: Igbo Leaders and Civil Society Speak Up
The verdict did not go unnoticed by civic leaders and former statesmen:
Senator Adolphus Wabara, former Senate President, criticized the life sentence, saying it effectively imprisons the entire Igbo race.
Wabara pointed out the stark contrast: a Boko Haram leader reportedly received only five years in prison just days before Kanu got life.
The Igbo Women Assembly (IWA) also rejected the judgment, calling it “pre-written” and deploring how the court ignored Kanu’s written submissions.
Some civil society groups argued that the real terrorists — in their view — are those who kill and destabilize the country but are later rehabilitated or integrated, while political voices are criminalized.
Why This Matters: Peace Without Justice Is a Farce
1. Undermining the Rule of Law
When the judiciary is perceived as a political instrument — punishing dissenters but forgiving those who align with the power elite — the rule of law suffers. Kanu’s supporters argue that his trial lacked fairness, given questions over jurisdiction, his extradition, and the way his defense was handled.
2. Fueling Resentment & Instability
For many in the Southeast, Kanu is a symbol of Igbo marginalization. The life sentence intensifies a sense that the Nigerian state is not just ignoring their grievances — it is actively suppressing them. Wabara’s comments that “the entire Igbo race” is being punished reflect this deep frustration.
At the same time, the government’s willingness to negotiate with or pardon other forms of insurgency (e.g., bandits or herdsmen) sends a dangerous message: violence can be profitable, but political dissent will be crushed.
3. Eroding Trust in Institutions
If the public begins to see security institutions and the justice system as selectively enforced, confidence in those institutions will erode. Citizens may increasingly doubt whether courts, laws, and even the federal government operate in the interest of all Nigerians or just a privileged few.
4. International Reputation
Nigeria’s contradictions are not just internal — they have global implications. On one hand, the government argues it must prosecute “terrorists” to protect national security. On the other hand, it negotiates with or pardons violent groups. Such inconsistency damages Nigeria’s credibility in the international community, particularly on human rights and rule-of-law issues.
The Moral Core: Peace Requires Justice
At its heart, this debate comes down to a simple but powerful truth: peace is unsustainable without justice. You cannot build a stable society by silencing dissent and rewarding violence selectively. The long-term effects are corrosive:
A people who feel oppressed will not rest simply because a leader is jailed; they will demand systemic change.
Reconciliation requires more than amnesty or rehabilitation — it requires accountability, recognition, and equal application of the law.
True national unity cannot be forced. It must be earned through fair institutions that treat every citizen equally, irrespective of ethnicity, region, or political position.
Conclusion: Nigeria Must Decide What It Stands For
Nigeria now faces a reckoning. The government must decide whether it's truly committed to justice, or if its approach to “terrorism” is merely a tool of political control. Allowing figures like Gumi to escape accountability while locking up dissenters like Kanu under life sentences is not just morally bankrupt — it’s a recipe for further division, not peace.
Until the state applies the law consistently, without fear or favor, the dream of a united, peaceful Nigeria will remain just that: a dream.
0 Comments