By Chinedu Okafor | SaharaNews247 | April 3, 2025
Introduction
The ongoing detention and prosecution of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has once again stirred national debate after Nigeria’s Department of State Services (DSS) Director General, Oluwatosin Ajayi, made a controversial remark urging Nigerians to defend themselves against terrorists and criminals.
Kanu’s lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, immediately reacted, stressing that his client is facing charges and extraordinary rendition for making a similar statement years ago. The development raises serious questions about double standards, human rights, and Nigeria’s approach to free speech and security.
Background: Nnamdi Kanu’s Detention and IPOB’s Proscription
Nnamdi Kanu has been in detention since his controversial arrest and extraordinary rendition to Nigeria in 2021. He is facing charges ranging from treasonable felony to incitement, with the Nigerian government accusing him of instigating violence through his broadcasts and speeches.
One of the central triggers for his legal troubles was his repeated call on Nigerians, particularly his followers in the South-East, to “defend themselves” against attacks by armed herdsmen and security forces. The Federal Government interpreted this as an incitement to violence, leading to the proscription of IPOB as a terrorist organization in 2017.
However, critics argue that the government’s handling of Kanu’s case reflects selective justice, pointing out that other political figures have made similar remarks without facing the same consequences.
What DSS DG Ajayi Said
Speaking at a public security engagement in Abuja, DSS DG Oluwatosin Ajayi stated that Nigerians must take personal responsibility for their security because the military, police, and intelligence agencies cannot be everywhere at once.
Ajayi cited incidents in Bauchi State where local communities successfully resisted Boko Haram insurgents without waiting for military intervention. He described community resilience and self-defense as the “first line of defence” against terrorism and other violent crimes.
His remarks, though framed within the context of community vigilance, echoed Nnamdi Kanu’s earlier position — a stance that led to Kanu’s persecution and the broader criminalization of IPOB.
Ejimakor’s Reaction: A Case of Injustice?
Reacting via his X (formerly Twitter) account, Aloy Ejimakor condemned what he described as blatant injustice and hypocrisy.
“Defend yourselves is the same thing Mazi Nnamdi Kanu said that was twisted to justify his extraordinary rendition and charging him for incitement of violence,” Ejimakor wrote.
“It’s also the same thing that led to the proscription of IPOB and the hounding of young Igbos as terrorists. #Injustice.”
His comments have reignited debates on whether Kanu’s trial is more political than legal, with growing calls for equity in how freedom of speech and national security are handled in Nigeria.
Double Standards in Nigeria’s Security Narrative
The juxtaposition of Kanu’s prosecution with Ajayi’s remarks highlights deep inconsistencies in Nigeria’s justice system.
When Kanu said “defend yourselves”, it was framed as incitement and terrorism.
When the DSS DG said the same thing, it was framed as community security and vigilance.
This raises a critical question: Is the law being applied equally to all Nigerians, or is it selectively enforced based on political considerations?
Implications for Free Speech and Human Rights
Human rights activists argue that the treatment of Nnamdi Kanu reflects Nigeria’s broader problem with civil liberties and freedom of expression.
Legal Concerns: Extraordinary rendition, which Kanu experienced, is illegal under international law and Nigeria’s own constitutional provisions.
Ethnic Perceptions: Many in the South-East believe the prosecution of Kanu and the proscription of IPOB reflect ethnic bias in government policy.
Security Dilemma: By criminalizing calls for self-defense, while also admitting the state cannot protect everyone, the government sends a confusing message to citizens.
Security Context: Nigeria’s Worsening Insecurity
The DSS DG’s comments were made against a backdrop of unprecedented insecurity in Nigeria.
Terrorism: Boko Haram and ISWAP continue to wage deadly insurgencies in the North-East.
Banditry: Rural communities in the North-West and North-Central face constant attacks from armed bandits.
Herders-Farmers Clashes: The Middle Belt and South-East remain hotbeds of violent conflict.
Kidnapping: From highways to schools, kidnapping has become a national crisis.
Given this context, many Nigerians see the DSS DG’s remarks as a realistic admission that the government lacks the capacity to protect all communities. Yet, critics ask why such realism was not extended to Nnamdi Kanu when he made similar statements.
Political and Legal Fallout
The contrasting treatment of Kanu and Ajayi could have far-reaching consequences:
1. Strengthened Calls for Kanu’s Release
IPOB members and human rights groups are likely to intensify demands for Kanu’s unconditional release, citing hypocrisy.
2. Judicial Pressure
Lawyers may use Ajayi’s remarks as evidence in court to argue that Kanu’s trial is unfair.
3. Political Polarization
The South-East may further interpret the government’s stance as marginalization, fueling separatist sentiments.
4. Credibility Crisis for DSS
The DSS risks being perceived as selective in its approach, undermining public trust in its neutrality.
Public Reactions
Reactions on social media platforms have been mixed:
Supporters of Kanu argue that this proves his detention is politically motivated.
Critics of IPOB insist that context matters — Kanu’s calls allegedly incited violence, while Ajayi’s was about community defense.
Neutral observers warn that Nigeria is heading towards anarchy if the state openly admits it cannot protect its citizens.
Expert Opinions
Legal experts and security analysts have weighed in on the issue:
Human Rights Lawyers say the government is contradicting itself and should either release Kanu or apply the same standard to Ajayi.
Security Analysts defend Ajayi, noting that community-based defense mechanisms are common in countries battling terrorism.
Political Scientists see this as another flashpoint in Nigeria’s fragile unity, especially given ethnic sensitivities in the South-East.
Conclusion
The debate over Nnamdi Kanu’s detention has been reignited by the DSS DG’s remarks. For many Nigerians, it represents a glaring example of double standards, injustice, and selective application of the law.
As insecurity worsens across the nation, the question remains: Should citizens be encouraged to defend themselves, or is such a call inherently dangerous?
Until Nigeria reconciles its contradictory approaches to security and free speech, the controversy surrounding Kanu’s detention is unlikely to fade.
