Written by Anyi Kings
Published on the Biafra Post
March 10, 2026
“The Biafra struggle is bigger than any family, any lawyer, or any inner circle.
The blood of those who died for the cause deserves accountability, not silence.”
Let me be clear from the outset before anyone rushes to crucify the Directorate of State (DOS).
The Directorate of State has reportedly reached out to members of the IPOB media structure with a request: that media operatives should refrain from harsh public criticism of Nnamdi Kanu. The reasoning behind this appeal is simple and strategic. Kanu remains the recognized leader of IPOB, and despite any perceived weaknesses or controversies surrounding him at the moment, the leadership believes he deserves a level of protection and institutional respect while the struggle for his release continues.
Part of that appeal also included a call for the media to remain focused on campaigning for his freedom rather than amplifying internal disagreements that may weaken the broader movement.
However, there lies a difficult dilemma.
While loyalty to leadership is important in any liberation movement, silence in the face of troubling developments can equally become dangerous. Some of us within the media wing cannot simply turn a blind eye to what appears to be growing disorder around Kanu’s immediate circle, particularly the activities involving certain family members and legal representatives.
Of particular concern is the role being played by lawyers such as Aloy Ejimakor and Maxwell Opara. There are serious evidencial facts in the public that these individuals may have compromised their professional responsibilities or are working in ways that indirectly empower government sponsored agents such as what many within the movement refer to as “autopilot.”
Whether these concerns are justified or exaggerated is another debate entirely. But the fact that such concerns exist and continue to grow should not be dismissed casually.
For this reason, the IPOB media structure reportedly conveyed a clear position through the Directorate of State: that Kanu should consider restricting the direct involvement of his siblings in sensitive IPOB affairs, and that certain legal representatives accused of misconduct or compromise should step aside in order to protect the credibility of the legal and political struggle.
According to available information, this message was conveyed to Kanu through a delegate who visited him during his detention under the Department of State Services (DSS), and later while he was transferred to detention in Sokoto.
Unfortunately, the response attributed to Kanu was brief and firm: that no one should attack his family.
That position is understandable from a personal perspective. Family loyalty is a powerful instinct for any human being. Yet leadership in a national liberation movement often requires the difficult separation between private loyalties and public responsibilities.
This is precisely where the tension now lies.
Some supporters may choose to accept the situation without question. That is their right. But as a media practitioner within the struggle, I cannot subscribe to blind loyalty. The duty of responsible media is not merely to praise leadership but to expose corruption, misconduct, or dangerous tendencies wherever they may arise.
Truth, after all, is not an act of betrayal.
It is also important to remember that the Biafra struggle is far bigger than any individual family or inner circle. More than five hundred men and women have already paid the ultimate price with their lives in pursuit of the dream of Biafra.
Their sacrifice demands something higher than silence.
If the movement is truly built on justice, accountability, and the collective interest of the people, then no individual—whether leader, lawyer, or family member—should stand above scrutiny.
History has shown repeatedly that liberation movements collapse not only because of external enemies but because of internal silence.
And silence, when truth is required, becomes complicity.
Post A Comment:
0 comments: