By Anyi Kings
Published On the Biafra Post
I do not get offended when someone calls Mazi Nnamdi Kanu a terrorist, nor do I get offended if someone calls me a terrorist. Such statements remain allegations until they are proven in a competent court of law.
If anyone claims that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, myself, or any other individual is a terrorist, the burden rests on the accuser to provide evidence.
Terrorism is not established through emotions, propaganda, political disagreements, or media narratives. It must be proven beyond reasonable doubt with credible evidence showing that the accused participated in acts of terrorism against civilians, institutions, or the state.
However, what I find offensive is when people describe IPOB as a terrorist organization.
The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) is not a single individual. It is a collection of people from different professions and backgrounds united by a common political objective. Within IPOB are medical doctors, engineers, civil servants, traders, entrepreneurs, students, academics, and other law-abiding citizens who share a belief in the principle of self-determination.
Self-determination is not a crime. It is a universally recognized right enshrined in international law and recognized by global institutions. Across the world, many peoples and nations have pursued self-determination through political advocacy, diplomacy, public engagement, and international lobbying.
It is therefore important to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the collective identity of a people pursuing a political cause.
For example, nobody would describe all Fulani people as terrorists simply because some criminal elements of Fulani origin have been linked to banditry, insurgency, or other violent activities. It would be unfair and intellectually dishonest to judge an entire ethnic or social group by the actions of a few individuals.
In the same manner, Indigenous People of Biafra cannot be collectively labelled terrorists because some individuals who identify as Biafrans may have been accused of violent crimes. If any person commits terrorism or any other criminal offence, that individual should be identified, investigated, prosecuted, and punished according to the law. Criminal responsibility is personal, not collective.
There is a clear distinction between terrorism and self-determination.
Self-determination involves promoting a political ideology, seeking international recognition, building diplomatic relationships, engaging in advocacy, educating the public, and peacefully demanding freedom from an existing sovereign entity. These are political activities that have been employed by numerous movements throughout history.
Terrorism, on the other hand, involves the deliberate use of violence, intimidation, or fear against civilians or society for political purposes. It is fundamentally different from peaceful political advocacy and lawful agitation.
Furthermore, the principle of self-defense should not be confused with terrorism. The right to self-defense is recognized as a natural right. Every human being has a right to life and possesses the right to protect themselves when faced with imminent danger or unlawful attack.
This principle exists independently of political beliefs and applies universally.
For these reasons, those who disagree with individuals who describe Mazi Nnamdi Kanu as a terrorist should not resort to personal attacks or emotional reactions. Instead, they should engage in reasoned debate and challenge such claims through facts, evidence, and logical arguments.
If someone alleges that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is a terrorist, the proper response is not outrage but a demand for evidence. Let the accuser present facts, and let the facts speak for themselves.
Public discourse is strengthened when arguments are answered with evidence rather than emotion. In matters as serious as terrorism, justice requires proof, not assumptions.
— Anyi Kings
June 13, 2026
Post A Comment:
0 comments: