It may be admitted that, to adhere strictly to the law of the land, the offence of conspiracy to commit an act of treason and other related offences for which he is on trial is indeed grave and it is not one for which bail is normally granted.
Besides, Kanu was to provide three sureties in the sum of N100 million each, one of them being a senior, highly placed person of Igbo extraction such as a senator. One must be – and this is most strange in a sovereign nation – a highly respected Jewish leader since Mr. Kanu claims his religion is Judaism, and one must be a highly respected person who owns landed property and is resident in Abuja.
The first and most important point to make about the Kanu matter is that his agitation for segregation is a symptom of a much larger discontent in this polity. It is a component of a widespread and comprehensive dissatisfaction with the structure, the composition, and the working of Nigeria’s political, economic and other systems.
The appropriateness of the way Nnamdi Kanu has pursued his goal is a matter of opinion, but its socially disruptive impact cannot be denied. It has triggered reactions that are unhelpful to peace, stability and unity of Nigeria.
It is noteworthy, however, that the claim of marginalisation, inequitable generation and distribution of national resources, and other forms of disaffection with Nigeria as presently constituted, is not at all unique to Kanu and his group.
The legal aspect of the Kanu nuisance, his violation of bail conditions, may not be in doubt, but like other loci of disaffection in the polity, it is essentially a political issue that must be handled with political tact. At other times, government has indeed sought political solutions to incidents that were either even more socially disruptive or were threatening to national stability.
A second point to make is that the seething and spreading discontent at different levels, segments and territories of this federal republic can be ascribed to a country not collectively and freely agreed to by its federating units. There is little – if any at all – meeting of minds among the leadership. There are hardly shared values among the component nations of Nigeria; there are hardly any core values that may be identified as irreducible minimum national values.
If a Nigerian nation is work in progress, as some would optimistically claim, it stands to reason that, judging by the problems that beset the country more than a hundred years after it was cobbled together, and six decades into self-governance, this most desirable goal remains, still, too far in the horizon to see.
For Kanu to attain this current level of threatening prominence, however, speaks for an abject failure of elders and leaders to guide him, manage him, and rein him in. No. But it is not too late for these elders and leaders to work with the Federal Government and every well-meaning segment of the country, to pursue a political solution to not only the Kanu demand, but indeed the grievances of other peoples in this multi-ethnic country.
Truth be told, this federation is not working because its managers are not true to the spirit and the letters of it. So, all discussions for a peaceful, stable, and developed and progressive Nigeria must begin and end with all federating units agreeing freely on the terms and conditions of the federation. This is the fundamental political solution that Nigeria’s leaders must implement at this trying time. And it is the only way to end the Kanu matter or other such matters.
In this article: