Biafra post
Published On the Biafra post
April 24, 2026
"Loyalty to a cause should never mean silence in the face of truth. When principles are betrayed, conscience must speak."
In recent times, a lot of comrades have raised genuine concerns about my recent articles. According to them, they are worried that my writings now appear confrontational and aggressive toward Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of IPOB. Some have even expressed confusion about whether I still believe in Biafra restoration and whether I still regard Mazi Nnamdi Kanu as our leader, or whether I have fallen away like Ikenga Uragu, Ijele, and others who were once ardent supporters of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and Biafra restoration, but later turned against him and the cause itself.
I wish to use this medium to address these concerns publicly, out of respect for genuine comrades and for the sake of proper record.
To begin with, I loved Mazi Nnamdi Kanu deeply. My support for him became part of me. There was a time I could hardly make a prayer without mentioning him. Before his imprisonment, one of my constant prayer points was that Chukwuokike Abiama should not allow the wishes of his enemies—and the enemies of Biafra restoration—to come to pass, and that divine protection should continue to cover him like a hen covers her chicks.
This reflected the level of concern I had over his continued detention. Time would fail me if I began to recount the many articles I wrote advocating for his release since I joined IPOB and IPOB Media. On my X account (formerly Twitter), I have over 20,000 tweets on record. Nearly 98 percent of those tweets were dedicated to calling on relevant authorities and the international community to look into the case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and use their influence to pressure the Nigerian government to release him.
I carried this same advocacy to Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms. I lost friends, lost comrades, and at times even lost jobs because of my addiction to the struggle online. As an influential figure in IPOB Media, I found it difficult to stay away from my phone. I would spend up to six hours daily online, pushing the cause. Sometimes this created issues at work, and I would quit jobs simply to find flexible ones that gave me time for agitation.
I did this for over a decade because I genuinely believed Kanu’s imprisonment would one day lead to Biafra freedom.
We took oaths of allegiance never to sabotage Biafra restoration or do anything that would endanger innocent Biafrans. Whenever I received reports of IPOB peaceful protesters being killed by Nigerian security forces, I would lose appetite for food, sometimes for days.
IPOB members felt like blood family to me—at times even more than my own relatives.
That was why I stood firmly against Simon Ekpa when he introduced criminality such as kidnapping for ransom and the killing of innocent Biafrans under the guise of enforcing sit-at-home for the release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
Those actions affected my own family directly. My stepmother went out innocently in search of livelihood and tragically fell into the hands of such bandits operating in the name of BLA in my village somewhere in Nsukka. She was killed and set ablaze. Her ashes were reportedly found months later in a forest.
This is one of the many pains families carry silently.
I confronted Simon Ekpa so strongly that he allegedly ordered his followers to threaten me publicly. Videos were made declaring me a target anywhere I was found simply because I supported Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and Biafra restoration through DOS.
Some of his foot soldiers, wearing masks, also threatened to assassinate me.
Yet none of that weakened my commitment to Biafra restoration.
I personally wrote many articles and used every available means, including through IPOB leadership, to advise Kanu to immediately distance himself from Aloy Ejimakor, Maxwell Opara, and others whom I believed had displayed sympathy toward the Simon Ekpa faction whose activities had led to bloodshed, including that of pregnant women in Enugu during sit-at-home enforcement.
Kanu had every opportunity to act, but he never did. Instead, the more dissatisfaction we expressed, the more reports emerged that he was angry with IPOB leadership and DOS for refusing to support Ekpa and his allies.
Even after his sentencing, he retained those same individuals and moved against members of DOS who resisted attempts to use Eastern Security Network for criminality or for targeting innocent Biafrans under the label of hunting saboteurs.
As I have written before, there was never a communication gap between IPOB leadership and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. What existed was a disagreement of strategy. Kanu’s preferred strategies, in my view, threatened the collapse of the movement, while the leadership’s strategy continued to preserve and strengthen it.
Recently, there were reports of a delegation that visited him in Sokoto Correctional Centre. According to those reports, he was questioned about his relationship with Simon Ekpa. It was allegedly revealed that Simon Ekpa had been introduced to him by Dave Umahi to represent Ebonyi interests within IPOB structures, and that funding had come from political sources.
The delegation reportedly challenged him, asking why politicians he publicly condemned were privately funding activities linked to him?
According to the account, he had no clear response.
Now here is my stand:
Kanu has violated the oath of allegiance of IPOB.
He enabled the killing of innocent Biafrans through silence and alleged collaboration with violent factions enforcing sit-at-home.
He has shown no sign of change and continues, in my view, to associate with the same questionable circle.
A careful look at his so-called “100 men” strategy and its supporters suggests to me that the same forces behind Simon Ekpa’s failed methods are being regrouped under a new label.
At the end, it becomes a win-win arrangement for certain interests, while innocent people continue to die, our economy suffers, and there is still no serious movement toward Biafra restoration.
This is why I have stopped agitating for Kanu’s release.
I now believe that if his freedom is to come, it lies in the “100 men” he assembled—not in the diplomatic outreach of DOS. I am not part of that hundred men, and I never will be.
The leadership of IPOB has remained focused and undistracted in pursuing diplomatic means toward Biafra restoration, and I will continue to support that leadership so long as they remain steadfast in our collective vision.
Therefore, unlike Ikenga Uragu and others who came for Biafra, discovered a different Kanu, and ended up hating both Kanu and Biafra—I have seen a different Kanu, rejected Kanu, but I still love Biafra and will continue to pursue it with like-minded people without compromise.
"I may have stopped agitating for one man’s release, but I will never stop agitating for the freedom of my people and the dream of Biafra."
Anyi Kings
April 24, 2026
