By Ọmọsọla Olumide
Former presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Peter Obi, has criticised President Bola Tinubu’s administration over the conviction and life imprisonment of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu.
Kanu was recently found guilty on all seven charges filed against him by the Federal Government and sentenced to life imprisonment by Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on November 20, 2025.
Reacting via his verified X handle on Saturday, Obi said the judgment comes at a time when Nigerians are grappling with worsening economic hardship, insecurity, and the consequences of failed governance. According to him, instead of easing tension, the decision may heighten insecurity across the Southeast.
Obi argued that Kanu’s arrest, detention and conviction represent a failure of leadership and a refusal to address underlying grievances.
“I have always maintained that Mazi Kanu should never have been arrested,” Obi said. He reiterated that dialogue, constructive engagement, and inclusive governance—not force—remain the best path to lasting peace.
He noted that the concerns Kanu raised were not impossible to resolve, insisting they required empathy, wisdom and sincere national dialogue.
Obi criticised the government’s approach, saying it has “deepened mistrust” and created an unnecessary distraction at a time when Nigerians are overwhelmed by hunger and insecurity.
While acknowledging that some Nigerians believe the law has taken its course, he stressed that leadership often requires political solutions, negotiated settlements and reconciliation—especially where legal measures fail to secure peace and stability.
Obi likened the government’s handling of the case to “a man trapped in a hole who continues to dig deeper instead of seeking a way out.”
He maintained that Nigeria cannot achieve unity through hostility, but through healing, reconciliation, fairness and compassion.
Obi called on President Tinubu, the Council of State and respected statesmen to step in and pursue a political solution to the prolonged dispute.
Opinions have remained divided since the judgment, with some supporting the court’s ruling while others criticised it as unfair and discriminatory against the Southeast.

No comments:
Post a Comment