By Anyi Kings
Published on the Biafra post
The leadership of the institutionalized Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), headed by Mazi Chika Edoziem, should, as a matter of urgency, issue an official statement withdrawing from and dissociating itself from any diplomatic negotiations, engagements, or discussions being conducted regarding the release of former IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
Such a decision is necessary not only to protect the integrity of the institution but also to preserve the ideological foundation upon which IPOB was established.
The Nigerian Government has consistently alleged that IPOB is a terrorist organization and remains proscribed under Nigerian law. Despite these allegations, no member of IPOB has been convicted by any Nigerian court for carrying out acts of terrorism on behalf of the organization. This reality has continued to strengthen the argument that the conduct of IPOB members has largely remained peaceful and consistent with the organization's declared objectives.
Furthermore, despite the terrorist designation applied to IPOB within Nigeria, many countries around the world where IPOB maintains a presence have not classified the movement as a terrorist organization. Across these countries, IPOB members continue to live and operate as law-abiding citizens, engaging in lawful advocacy and political expression within the confines of their respective legal systems.
IPOB consists of men and women from various professional backgrounds, including academics, engineers, medical doctors, consultants, entrepreneurs, business professionals, and other accomplished individuals who have united around a common objective: the pursuit of the sovereign State of Biafra through peaceful self-determination, political engagement, diplomacy, and internationally recognized democratic principles.
The foundational philosophy of IPOB was never predicated upon violence, intimidation, terrorism, or criminal conduct. Rather, it was built upon the principle that the Biafran people possess the right to pursue their political aspirations through peaceful and lawful means consistent with international standards and best practices.
However, the circumstances surrounding former IPOB leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu have created a significant distinction between the institution and the individual.
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was prosecuted and convicted by the trial court on multiple counts, including allegations relating to terrorism, conspiracy, incitement through broadcasts, encouragement of attacks against security personnel, enforcement of sit-at-home directives through threats of violence, and the unlawful importation of broadcasting equipment.
While appeals against the conviction and sentence remain pending before higher courts, the conviction currently stands and remains enforceable unless and until it is overturned or set aside through the appellate process. Consequently, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is presently serving the sentence imposed by the court while pursuing his legal remedies through ongoing appeals.
Regardless of differing opinions regarding the merits of the case, the institutional leadership of IPOB must recognize that the actions for which Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was convicted are fundamentally different from the principles upon which IPOB was founded.
Incitement to violence, threats against civilians, attacks on security personnel, and other forms of criminal conduct cannot be reconciled with a movement that seeks international legitimacy through peaceful self-determination and political diplomacy.
For this reason, the institutionalized IPOB under the leadership of Mazi Chika Edoziem should formally withdraw from any diplomatic efforts aimed at securing the release of its former leader. Such a withdrawal would not constitute hostility toward Mazi Nnamdi Kanu as an individual. Rather, it would represent a necessary institutional safeguard designed to separate the organization from the personal legal consequences arising from actions that fall outside the movement's declared principles.
An official dissociation would also send a clear message to governments, international observers, diplomatic partners, and the wider public that IPOB remains committed to peaceful advocacy, lawful engagement, and democratic self-determination.
Institutions survive and retain credibility only when they are governed by principles rather than personalities. The future of IPOB, if it is to endure as a respected and internationally recognized self-determination movement, must be anchored on its founding ideals rather than the actions or legal circumstances of any individual, regardless of their historical role within the organization.
The institutionalization of IPOB requires a clear distinction between the movement and its former leader. An official withdrawal from diplomatic engagement concerning Mazi Nnamdi Kanu's release would be a decisive step toward reinforcing that distinction and preserving the organization's stated commitment to peaceful self-determination.
Anyi Kings
June 18, 2026
