By Engr. Bola Babarinde
Across modern Africa, movements for self determination have often emerged from deep frustrations over governance, security, and perceived marginalisation. In , two prominent figures have come to symbolise different strands of separatist agitation in recent history: Sunday Igboho in the South West and Nnamdi Kanu in the South East. While both men claim to represent the aspirations of their people, their methods, rhetoric, organisational structures, and engagement with the state present sharply contrasting narratives that deserve careful international examination.
Sunday Igboho rose to prominence primarily as a grassroots mobiliser advocating for the protection of Yoruba communities amid rising insecurity, particularly kidnappings and violent crimes attributed by local communities to armed groups operating in rural areas. His activism gained momentum during the administration of of Late President Muhammadu Buhari, a period many critics argued was marked by uneven security responses across regions. Igboho openly challenged federal authorities over border management policies, especially when northern land borders were perceived as porous while the border with the remained tightly controlled. Supporters portray him as a regional agitator reacting to immediate security threats rather than building a structured insurgent movement. His campaign largely revolved around community mobilisation, public rallies, and political advocacy connected to the idea of Yoruba self determination. Although controversial, his actions were widely framed by followers as defensive activism rather than an attempt to establish a parallel governing authority.
In contrast, Nnamdi Kanu emerged as the leader of the (IPOB), a structured movement seeking the revival of an independent Biafran state. His approach combined political agitation with extensive media operations directed at both domestic and diaspora audiences. Through broadcasting platforms and digital communication networks, he built a transnational support base and issued directives that followers often treated as binding political instructions. Critics argue that his leadership style evolved beyond activism into command driven mobilisation. Authorities have alleged that enforced sit at home orders and confrontational rhetoric contributed to economic disruption and heightened tensions in parts of southeastern Nigeria, while supporters maintain that such measures represented civil resistance aimed at drawing global attention to longstanding grievances. Unlike Igboho’s largely regional security advocacy, Kanu’s movement pursued a clearly defined political separation agenda supported by organised structures resembling a proto political authority.
The divergence between both figures becomes clearer when examining their methods and public perception. Igboho’s activism was largely reactive to local insecurity and community defence narratives, whereas Kanu’s campaign was ideological and state focused, seeking full political secession. Igboho operated mainly as a symbolic mobiliser without a formal parallel governance system, while Kanu led an organised movement with hierarchy, media arms, and coordinated directives. Igboho’s confrontations with federal institutions were primarily through protests and public challenges, whereas Kanu’s confrontations extended into sustained institutional defiance and claims of alternative authority.
Internationally, legal accountability is often determined not only by political demands but by the methods used in pursuing them. Nigerian authorities maintain that charges against Kanu stem from allegations tied to national security, incitement, and organisational activities viewed as threatening state stability. Observers note that strong rhetoric and uncompromising positions may have hardened state responses, while courts often consider perceived remorse or willingness to de escalate tensions during legal proceedings. The existence of an organised movement capable of enforcing directives raises legal concerns distinct from individual activism, making prospects for pardon or leniency more complicated under conventional legal frameworks. Legal determinations, however, ultimately remain the responsibility of the courts, guided by due process and fair trial standards.
The comparison between Sunday Igboho and Nnamdi Kanu therefore reflects two fundamentally different models of agitation. One is widely viewed as a regional security advocate shaped by immediate communal fears, while the other represents an ideological separatist project with institutional ambitions. Analysts often argue that movements are judged not only by their stated goals but also by their strategies, organisational discipline, and impact on civilian life.
Ultimately, the stories of Sunday Igboho and Nnamdi Kanu highlight contrasting responses to Nigeria’s unresolved national questions. Both emerged from environments of dissatisfaction, yet their approaches diverged significantly in tone, structure, and consequences. For Nigeria and the international community alike, the enduring challenge remains the building of institutions strong enough to address grievances peacefully while ensuring accountability under the rule of law. Until governance systems convincingly balance justice, security, and inclusion, figures such as Igboho and Kanu will continue to shape national discourse in profoundly different ways.
