Presidency Insists There is No Equivalence Between Kanu, Igboho

By: Israel Adeleke

OPEN TELEVISION NAIJA (OTN) News reports as gathered that the Presidency has dismissed growing comparisons between the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, and Yoruba nation advocate, Sunday Igboho, insisting that the two figures cannot be placed on the same pedestal in terms of their actions and impact on national security.

OTN News further reports as gathered that speaking on Tuesday, the Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Public Communication and Orientation, Sunday Dare, said there is “no basis for comparison” between the two, as their methods, motivations and consequences differ sharply.

In a statement issued to journalists, Dare stressed that Kanu’s activities crossed the threshold into what he described as “armed insurrection” against the Nigerian state.

He noted that the IPOB leader recently convicted of terrorism by a Federal High Court in Abuja and now serving a life sentence was linked to violent enforcement of sit-at-home orders, attacks on security personnel, destruction of public infrastructure, and the formation of armed groups such as the Eastern Security Network (ESN).

According to the Presidency, these actions resulted in the deaths of more than 700 people and contributed to significant economic paralysis across the South-East. Dare added that Kanu’s rhetoric often encouraged confrontation with the state and even targeted civilians within his own ethnic group who defied IPOB directives.

In contrast, the Presidency maintained that Igboho’s activism was rooted in defending Yoruba communities against criminal elements, particularly alleged violent herders implicated in killings, kidnappings and farm destruction across the South-West.

Dare stated that Igboho’s approach which included self-defence measures and peaceful agitation for Yoruba self-determination did not involve the creation of a militia, attacks on security forces, or the imposition of crippling directives on civilians.

“The line is clear,” the statement read. “One crossed into armed rebellion and violent enforcement that harmed citizens and challenged the authority of the Nigerian state. The other remained largely defensive, localised and without state-targeted insurgency.”

The Presidency urged commentators, political actors and the general public to refrain from equating the two men, arguing that doing so distorts both context and reality.

It, however, added that national discourse must remain grounded in facts to avoid mischaracterising issues of security and civic agitation.