Ryan Cummings ANALYSIS: Could separatist Biafra group go the way of Boko Haram in Nigeria?

While a Boko Haram-like militarisation of a group seeking to secede from Nigeria is not a foregone conclusion, a continued state crackdown on it could at the very least swell its support.

Formed in 2012 by separatist activist Nnamdi Kanu, the Indigenous People of Biafra (Ipob) movement remained largely obscure. It was only the latest in a number of voices lobbying for a region dominated by the Igbo community to revive a short-lived state.

The Igbo are one of Nigeria’s three main ethnic groups and the main one in Nigeria’s south-east, a region that has been a crucible for successive separatist movements seeking to restore the short-lived Republic of Biafra.

The secessionists’ defeat in 1970 following a ruinous civil war has led to the longevity of arguments that the community continues to be punished, including through being allocated less resources by the state.

But Kanu’s reasons for seeking to resurrect Biafra were generally uncirculated outside his home town of Umuahia, the state capital of Abia and the de facto capital of the erstwhile republic.

Paradoxically, Ipob’s rise to prominence was aided by a state crackdown on Kanu, his Radio Biafra mouthpiece and the group’s limited membership.

Initially involving the forcible dispersal of Ipob gatherings, the state then targeted its leader. Kanu was arrested in October 2015 on charges of sedition and incitement. To sympathisers, the crackdown on the group strengthened his claims of the Nigerian state’s ethno-political oppression of Igbos which anchors their separatist ideology.

Formally designated a terrorist organisation

Although Kanu was conditionally released on bail in April 2017, the government’s suppression of Ipob continued. On 15 September, Ipob was declared a terrorist group by Nigeria’s director of defence information, major-general John Enenche.

The military figure cited several reasons for this. These included Ipob’s self-professed creation of paramilitary structures; its establishment of illegal roadblocks and the group’s possession and use of weapons against a military patrol it reportedly ambushed near Kanu’s Afaraukwu country home on 10 September.

As per Nigeria’s 2011 Terrorism (Prevention) Act, Ipob was formally designated a terrorist organisation by the Federal High Court of Abuja on 20 September, its existence proscribed throughout Nigeria. Kanu is challenging this.

While the merit of Ipob’s terrorist designation is subject to a judicial review, its current proscription indicates the goverment’s stance on its secessionist agenda.

State crackdown ‘could inflame’ crisis

The Nigerian government appears to emphasise forcefully clamping down on the group rather than listening to its grievances. At least one lawmaker has termed Ipob’s ambitions unconstitutional, saying that its military suppression is justifiable. (Note: Section 2 (1) of Nigeria’s 1999 constitution states that “Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”.)

The immediate concern is whether Ipob’s terrorist designation and its treatment as such will resolve or further inflame the brewing crisis. Based on recent precedent, the latter seems the more plausible outcome and this would have startling similarities to another group.

A crackdown on mobilisation, the arrest of its leader and a ban were the same mechanisms employed by the Nigerian government against Boko Haram when the sect was still operating as a civic movement in north-eastern Nigeria.

It was the forceful suppression of Boko Haram, culminating with the custodial killing of its leader Muhammad Yusuf in June 2009, that ultimately militarised it.

Led to Africa’s deadliest Islamist insurgency

Some 60 Ipob members are in police custody on terrorism charges while Kanu has been missing since 14 September.

The situation in Nigeria’s south-east is uncomfortably similar to that which preceded the so-called Maiduguri uprising and which ultimately birthed Africa’s deadliest Islamist insurgency.

While a Boko Haram-esque militarisation of Ipob is not a foregone conclusion, a continued state crackdown on the Igbo movement could at the very least swell its support base. Kanu’s often inflammatory rhetoric and Ipob’s threats to disrupt political processes in Nigeria’s south-east has tended to limit the group’s appeal even among Igbo leaders.

However, a recent study suggests support of both Ipob and its separatist ambitions is increasing in Nigeria’s south-east and south-south political zones, amid the government’s crackdown.

Issued a ‘quit’ notice

The increasing appeal of Ipob’s cause risks not only placing a growing base of adherents at conflict with the Nigerian government but also with other ethnic groups.

A group aligned with the northern Nigeria Hausa community has issued a 1 October ultimatum for Igbos to leave the north and relocate to the south-east. Paradoxically, similar “quit notices” and associated pogroms of northern Igbo communities birthed the idea of Igbo independence.

The Arewa Youth Forum’s provocative demand elicited only a rhetorical response from the government but is thought to have catalysed recent clashes between the two communities in the city of Jos, long a flashpoint for ethno-political tensions.

With ambiguity surrounding whether the quit notice remains in force, the possibility of further intercommunal violence between the Igbo and Hausa communities remains.

Again, this would only serve to promote the ideal of an Igbo state, particularly if the government’s response is deemed partial to the ethnic northern Nigeria constituency of President Muhammadu Buhari.


Ryan Cummings (@pol_sec_analyst) is a director of Africa-focused risk management company, Signal Risk (www.signalrisk.com)


© Copyright Africa Check 2017. You may reproduce this piece or content from it for the purpose of reporting and/or discussing news and current events. This is subject to: Crediting Africa Check in the byline, keeping all hyperlinks to the sources used and adding this sentence at the end of your publication: “This report was written by Africa Check, a non-partisan fact-checking organisation. View the original piece on their website", with a link back to this page.

Comment on this report

Comments 3
  1. By Peace Forall

    Is it not worrisome that a member of Buhari cabinet said it would amount to ethnic injustice and hate speech, if the Fulani herdsmen terrorist, the fourth deadiliest world terrorist group that have killed thousands of nigerians in their homes and communities are declared as terrorists but would not amount to ethnic injustice and hate speech as peaceful and non violent IPOB is tag terrorist. Biafrans don’t have the same religion and idiology of killing people and killing ourselves to be matyre or get recompensed with 1 million virgins. The hausa-fulani terrorist tribes, the retrogressive core north, primitive forces of oppression and the asinine peddlars of lies, ignorance and falsehood to destroy someone else’s yearning for freedom from oppression and aspiration for liberty tag IPOB terrorist to silent our voice and quench our aspiration for Freedom and Liberty. Rather than persist with its self-defeating, self-destructive adventure, Nigeria should be advised to take urgent steps to address the inequities and injustices, which unequivocally validate these agitations and allow peaceful referendum as it’s done in every civilized society.

    Reply Report comment
  2. By Frank Ganah

    Reading this article, I have a feeling the author is a Nigeria government paid lobbyist on a mission to advance the Nigerian state’s narrative, whitewash its brutal murder of unarmed civilians and somehow sneak in a suggestion that IPOB is a terrorist organization, raise comparison with Boko Haram and chip in that somehow campaigning for self-determination is “unconstitutional” in a democratic society! This writer has the ball to think he can do this kind political job, albeit by stealth, without being found out.

    How else can somebody write a balanced story on IPOB and somehow omit the cold blood murder of unarmed IPOB activists, discuss a “quit notice” to fellow citizens in a mater-of-fact manner without pointing how unconstitutional and strange that is in a democratic republic, the mass grave in the Onitsha military base, the state terrorism in the southeast via Operation Python Dance 1 and 2 and of course the fiscal and infrastructural marginalization of the Southeast at the root of the agitation? Nice try.

    This site should require authors to declare who they are working for and if they had been paid to write particularly pieces.

    Reply Report comment
  3. By Azubuike

    The author is misinformed. We Biafrans can not be likened to Boko Haram. What car bomb have we set off? What school girls do we kidnap and rape? What innocent people have we killed? In fact, contrarily it is the Nigerian Federation that is killing us.

    All people indigenous to their land have a right to self determination (2007 UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples). We do not want war and we do not want any part in a restructured Nigeria. Let Nigerians restructure a Nigeria that does not include us. All we want is our freedom. We will not stop until we conduct a referendum and have our independence.

    Reply Report comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Africa Check encourages frank, open, inclusive discussion of the topics raised on the website. To ensure the discussion meets these aims we have established some simple House Rules for contributions. Any contributions that violate the rules may be removed by the moderator.

Contributions must:

  • Relate to the topic of the report or post
  • Be written mainly in English

Contributions may not:

  • Contain defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or harassing language or material;
  • Encourage or constitute conduct which is unlawful;
  • Contain material in respect of which another party holds the rights, where such rights have not be cleared by you;
  • Contain personal information about you or others that might put anyone at risk;
  • Contain unsuitable URLs;
  • Constitute junk mail or unauthorised advertising;
  • Be submitted repeatedly as comments on the same report or post;

By making any contribution you agree that, in addition to these House Rules, you shall be bound by Africa Check's Terms and Conditions of use which can be accessed on the website.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.