Reality Above Emotions: My Response to "Who Did This To Africans"

By Anyi Kings 

Published On the Biafra Post 

To start with, my comparison between Nelson Mandela in prison during the ANC's struggle against apartheid and Nnamdi Kanu in prison during IPOB's pursuit of Biafran self-determination was intended to highlight both similarities and crucial differences.

The fundamental difference lies in the role each man played while in detention.

Mandela never allowed his personal freedom to overshadow the collective objective of the anti-apartheid struggle. His imprisonment became a symbol of resistance, while the ANC remained focused on the larger goal of dismantling apartheid and securing equal rights for Black South Africans.

In contrast, Kanu's international lobbying efforts appear to be centered primarily on securing his personal release. Likewise, his legal appeals focus heavily on proving his innocence and challenging the jurisdiction of the courts, rather than using the courtroom as a platform to advance the broader Biafran cause.

Ideally, the Directorate of State (DOS) and IPOB should be at the forefront of lobbying for Kanu's release while simultaneously keeping the central objective—Biafran self-determination—on the international agenda. Instead, many supporters believe that the collective cause has gradually been sidelined, while Kanu's personal legal battle has become the dominant focus.

History provides a useful comparison.

Nelson Mandela was not merely an activist; he was one of the founders of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC. In 1962, he traveled to countries such as Algeria and Ethiopia to receive military and guerrilla training. During his famous 1964 "I Am Prepared to Die" speech, Mandela openly admitted his involvement in acts of sabotage. He did not deny his actions. Rather, he justified them as a necessary response to years of oppression, injustice, and state violence.

That is what taking responsibility looks like.

Whether one agrees with Mandela's methods or not, he stood before the court and openly explained why he took those actions, while keeping the political cause at the center of the discussion.

Can the same be said of Kanu?

Has there been any court proceeding where Kanu openly acknowledged responsibility for any statements or broadcasts attributed to him and then explained them within the context of the Biafran struggle? Instead, his legal arguments have largely focused on jurisdictional issues and procedural challenges while distancing himself from responsibility for the consequences of his broadcasts.

This does not absolve the Nigerian government of its own actions.

The government bears responsibility for many of the tensions that escalated the conflict. When IPOB members exercised their constitutional rights to assembly, association, and peaceful advocacy for self-determination, the state's response often relied on force rather than dialogue. This contributed significantly to the deep mistrust that exists today.

However, two wrongs do not make a right.

My concern is that Kanu's continued effort to distance himself from every controversial aspect of the struggle in pursuit of personal freedom risks being interpreted as a betrayal of the very cause that inspired millions of supporters.

The implications are serious.

If supporters around the world begin to view him as prioritizing personal freedom over collective liberation, many may gradually withdraw their support. Once a freedom movement loses unity, the state gains a significant advantage.

Another concern is that Kanu's increasing distance from the global IPOB structure and the Directorate of State creates the perception that a compromise may be underway. If his eventual release comes with conditions that discourage continued advocacy for Biafran self-determination, then many supporters would consider such freedom politically meaningless.

Let me be clear: my criticism does not come from hatred.

You do not love Kanu more than I do.

I stood firmly with Kanu for more than a decade. My support was not casual; it was rooted in belief and conviction. That is precisely why I speak today. What concerns me is not Kanu's imprisonment, but the signals his actions continue to send. To many observers, those signals increasingly resemble surrender rather than resistance.

History will ultimately judge whether these concerns were justified or misplaced.

For now, I choose reality over emotion.

— Anyi Kings

June 8, 2026 

WhoDid ThisTo Africans  Lolo Nneka Chimezie  Chinonso Uba  Radio Biafra Biafra TV