Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe has described the life imprisonment handed to Nnamdi Kanu as neither surprising nor accidental.
In a statement issued through his media aide Uchenna Awom, the veteran lawmaker framed the judgment as a foregone conclusion — the predictable end of what he called a preconceived plot against the Igbo nation.
His intervention crystallises a familiar grievance: the perception that justice in Nigeria is applied unequally across regions and ethnicities.
The Federal High Court’s conviction and life sentence for Mr Kanu on terrorism charges marks a decisive moment in a long legal saga that began with his arrest and controversial extradition from Kenya in 2021.
The court found him guilty on counts including incitement and enforcement of violent civil disobedience, and the judgment has rekindled old wounds tied to the Biafran secessionist struggle of the late 1960s.
Abaribe’s critique is not mere rhetoric. It sits atop an argument with historical precedent. The Federal Government’s decision to offer amnesty, rehabilitation and economic reintegration to Niger Delta militants from 2009 onwards is a case in point.
That policy, widely credited with sharply reducing pipeline attacks and restoring output, also produced a striking feature of post-conflict Nigeria: former warlords converted into contractors and beneficiaries of state tenders.
Such outcomes feed perceptions of double standards when compared with the treatment of separatist leaders in the South East.
Nor is the contrast limited to the Niger Delta. In recent years states in the North have pursued negotiations and local compromise measures with armed bandit groups and insurgents.
Those arrangements, often informal and controversial, have at times resulted in periodic reprieves from violence and in the release of abductees.
Critics argue these negotiated approaches amount to pragmatic peace building; others warn they institutionalise impunity.
Abaribe invokes these examples to ask a blunt question about national equity: when it comes to justice, who receives mercy and who receives the full force of the law.
There are also hard numbers behind the politics. The memory of the 1967–70 civil war, in which estimates of fatalities range into the millions, still looms large across the South East and conditions the response to federal actions perceived as punitive.
At the same time, analysts point to the human and economic cost of contemporary violence alleged to be linked to separatist agitation. Official and media accounts since the trial have cited deaths and major economic losses attributed to enforced shutdowns and attacks in the region.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the rule of law must hold. Sentencing must be proportionate, transparent and consistent if it is to command national legitimacy. Yet Abaribe’s complaint underlines a separate necessity: the state must also manage reconciliation.
Where the enforcement of criminal law is not paired with clear, even-handed policies of engagement, rehabilitation and political inclusion, grievances calcify into cycles of resentment.
For now Abaribe has urged calm, counselled prayer and placed any likely political remedy in the hands of the presidency. His plea for peace will be tested in the coming days.
How the Federal Government responds, whether through outreach, legal appeals or continued firmness, will determine whether this judgment deepens division or becomes the start of a more equitable conversation about justice in Nigeria.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
