Posted by Chinenye on Tue 21st Jul, 2026 - tori.ng
A heated controversy has erupted after a public remark about detained IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu triggered strong reactions and a legal response from his team.
(Nnamdi Kanu. Photo by BBC)
The legal team for Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, has denounced statements made by a man known only as Chigozie Nnabugwu, who allegedly called on the Federal Government to execute the detained separatist leader.
The statement was described as illegal, careless, and a threat to human life.
The demand came after Nnabugwu stated in a live broadcast interview on Monday that if Kanu was slain, normalcy would return to the South-East.
"If Nnamdi Kanu is dead today, if the Nigerian government kills Nnamdi Kanu, trust me, normalcy will start coming, and that's what every Igbo man prays for," he said.
He reportedly added that addressing the root causes of violence remained key to lasting stability in the South-East.
The comments, however, triggered widespread condemnation on social media, with many Nigerians rejecting the suggestion and insisting that Kanu's fate should remain within the confines of the law.
Reacting in a statement issued on Tuesday, Kanu's Special Counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, described the remarks as a call for extr@judicial k!lling and demanded an immediate public retraction from Nnabugwu, as well as an apology from the television station involved.
The legal team condemned the comments made by Chigozie Nnabugwu, who had publicly urged the Nigerian government to k!ll their client in order for normalcy to return to the South-East.
Ejimakor described the comments as reckless, irresponsible and capable of inciting violence, arguing that such a call constitutes a clear threat to life and risks triggering a breakdown of public order.
He maintained that the statement appeared to violate provisions of the Cybercrimes Act, specifically Section 24(1), which criminalises the knowing or intentional transmission of messages via electronic means, including broadcast and social media platforms, that pose a threat to life or are intended to cause a breakdown of law and order, noting that the offence carries a fine of up to ₦7 million or imprisonment of up to three years, or both.
The lawyer warned that additional criminal liabilities could arise under the Criminal Code for incitement to violence and related offences.
He also accused the media house of providing a platform for inflammatory comments capable of threatening public peace, arguing that by airing such content without regard for its potential to incite violence, the station could face regulatory sanctions for breaching broadcast codes on incitement and public order, adding that broadcasters who enable hate speech or calls for unlawful k!llings could similarly face regulatory and legal consequences.
The legal team further argued that demanding Kanu's execution while court proceedings concerning him remain pending amounts to interference with the judicial process, describing it as a direct subversion of the judicial process that could potentially constitute actionable contempt of court.
Ejimakor disclosed that Kanu's legal team was reviewing available legal options and had issued what he described as a pre-action notice, demanding that Nnabugwu issue an immediate public retraction of his statement and that the television station render an unqualified televised apology for airing the content, warning that legal action would follow should both parties fail to take immediate remedial steps.
The interview also sparked widespread reactions on social media, with several users criticising Nnabugwu's comments.
Some users argued that no harm should come to Kanu, questioning why individuals accused of instigating violence in other parts of the country were not being subjected to similar calls, while others suggested that addressing the root causes of the agitation, including poverty, would be a more effective path to resolution.
Some commentators also warned that harming Kanu could deepen separatist sentiment in the South-East rather than resolve it, arguing that military actions in the region have historically fuelled further agitation, and that equity and justice remained the real solution.
Kanu has remained in the custody of the Federal Government since he was returned to Nigeria in 2021 and is currently standing trial on t3rrorism-related charges before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
His continued detention has remained a subject of political and legal debate, with his legal team repeatedly demanding his release while the Federal Government insists the prosecution should continue.