Why Nnamdi Kanu Remains Detained While Sunday Igboho Was Released: A Full Fact-Check on Igbo Claims of Double Standards

 

A fact-check analysis comparing the prolonged detention of Nnamdi Kanu and the release of Sunday Igboho, highlighting the legal differences behind both cases.

FACT-CHECK REPORT: UNDERSTANDING WHY IGBO AGITATORS CLAIM DOUBLE STANDARDS IN THE DETENTION OF NNAMDI KANU COMPARED TO YORUBA ACTIVIST SUNDAY IGBOHO

For many years, a section of the Igbo community has argued that Nigeria applies double standards when dealing with separatist or regional agitators, especially when comparing the prolonged detention of Nnamdi Kanu with the shorter and more flexible treatment given to Yoruba activist Sunday Adeyemo, popularly known as Sunday Igboho.

 This belief has grown stronger because Kanu, who leads the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has remained in custody for a long period, while Igboho, who was also involved in self-determination activities, eventually gained freedom after a period of detention in Benin Republic. But how accurate is this claim? Does the comparison genuinely show ethnic discrimination, or do the two cases have different legal and diplomatic realities that shape their outcomes? A thorough fact-check is necessary to separate emotion from verified facts.

To understand the present situation, we must begin with the early years of the Biafra agitation in the present era. The revival of the Biafra movement in the 2000s and 2010s was tied to a renewed sense of political exclusion and marginalisation felt by many Igbo groups. IPOB, under Nnamdi Kanu, quickly became the most visible and media-covered organisation pushing for a referendum on the independence of the South East. Kanu used radio broadcasts, public rallies, and legal activism to popularise the movement. His messages attracted passionate supporters but also triggered concerns within government circles, especially when some of his speeches were interpreted as separatist or confrontational.

Nnamdi Kanu’s first major clash with the Nigerian government came in 2015 when he was arrested and charged with terrorism-related offences, treasonable felony, and other allegations linked to his activism. He spent several months in detention before being granted bail in 2017 on health grounds.

 The conditions of his bail were strict, including restrictions on public gatherings and political statements. Things changed dramatically later that year when security agencies raided his family home in Abia State. Kanu disappeared afterwards, with his lawyers claiming he fled for safety. The government, however, insisted he violated bail and became a fugitive. His absence prompted the court to revoke his bail and issue fresh warrants for his arrest.

Years later, in 2021, Kanu was intercepted abroad and returned to Nigeria in an operation that generated global controversy. Many of his supporters described it as an unlawful abduction, while the Nigerian government called it a lawful re-arrest to face pending charges. Since then, he has been held in security custody while his lengthy and complicated court processes continue. His case involves multiple charges, legal objections, appeals, procedural delays, and debates over jurisdiction. These factors have contributed significantly to the long duration of his detention.

On the other side of the comparison is Sunday Igboho, a Yoruba nation activist known for his strong stance against killings and kidnappings attributed to criminal herders in Oyo and surrounding states.

 In 2021, his home was raided by Nigerian security agencies, and he was declared wanted on allegations that included illegal possession of weapons and involvement in activities considered a threat to national security. Igboho fled Nigeria and attempted to travel to Germany, but he was arrested in Cotonou, Benin Republic, based on a request reportedly made through regional security channels.

Benin Republic detained him, but unlike Kanu, the proceedings were entirely under a foreign judicial system. The Nigerian government filed claims seeking to extradite him, but Beninese courts reviewed the case independently. After several court sessions, Benin Republic refused immediate extradition and placed him under detention and later under strict medical and legal supervision. 

Eventually, Igboho was released conditionally and later allowed to leave Benin. He later returned to Nigeria in 2024 to visit family and attend public functions. His journey through detention was notably shorter and much less restrictive than Kanu’s long experience within Nigeria’s domestic legal system.

These two situations have led many Igbo people to ask why one activist has remained behind bars while another became free. On the surface, it appears straightforward, but the legal and diplomatic details show that the two cases are not identical. Kanu faces a long history of domestic charges within Nigeria, including allegations tied to a group that the federal government formally designated as a terrorist organisation. Courts often take such charges more seriously, especially when there is a history of bail violation. Kanu’s disappearance in 2017 remains a major factor influencing judicial decisions. Courts tend to be more cautious when a defendant has previously absconded, regardless of the reason behind the escape.

Sunday Igboho’s case, in contrast, was not adjudicated in Nigeria but in Benin Republic. Nigerian authorities could not simply keep him detained because the power rested with Beninese courts, which applied their own laws and standards. The accusations against him were also different, focusing more on immigration and security violations rather than terrorism or treason. Because the legal weight of the allegations differed, and because the decision to release him came from another country’s judiciary, his case followed a completely different path from Kanu’s.

This does not mean that the concerns of the Igbo community are baseless. Perceptions of inequality often grow when certain ethnic groups repeatedly feel politically sidelined or unfairly represented. The long detention of Kanu, combined with the historical memory of the Nigerian Civil War and questions about fairness in federal appointments, fuels the emotional narrative that Igbo rights are being denied. However, a strict fact-based analysis shows that the difference in outcomes has more to do with legal circumstances, international boundaries, and the nature of charges than with a proven policy of ethnic discrimination.

Still, the debate remains deeply emotional and politically important. Many observers argue that the government should pursue de-escalation, inclusive dialogue, and transparent judicial processes to rebuild trust. Others believe that high-profile separatist cases must be handled carefully to prevent nationwide tensions. What is clear is that the comparison between Kanu and Igboho continues to shape ethnic and political conversations across Nigeria.

In conclusion, the claim that Igbo people are being denied rights because Nnamdi Kanu remains detained while Sunday Igboho gained freedom contains emotional truth but not a fully factual foundation. The two cases involve different charges, different countries, different legal histories, and different judicial environments. 

While it is understandable that many see it as unequal treatment, the evidence shows that the disparity is rooted more in legal and diplomatic differences than in a direct ethnic bias that can be conclusively proven. Nonetheless, only transparency, justice, and fair governance can ease these long-standing tensions and restore public confidence across all regions of Nigeria.