By Ali Elias
The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) has announced a nationwide mobilisation for a protest demanding the release of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), who has remained in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) since his controversial re-arrest in 2021.
According to a statement by NANS president, Comrade Atiku Isah, students across the country will converge at zonal points before heading to Abuja on October 20 for what has been described as a “massive peaceful protest” under the theme Free Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. The movement, he said, is not just about one man but about justice, civil rights, and democratic accountability in Nigeria.
The timing of the protest is significant. It comes at a moment when public universities are shut down following a nationwide strike by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), and when many Nigerians are questioning the government’s handling of lawful dissent.
At the heart of the matter is not merely the fate of Nnamdi Kanu, but the deeper question of why the Federal Government continues dragging its feet in obeying court orders and responding to legitimate concerns about due process.
For over four years, Kanu’s case has zigzagged through Nigeria’s judicial system, moving from one courtroom to another, one judge to the next. His lawyers maintain that his continued detention, despite several judicial pronouncements, offends the very spirit of the constitution. Human rights groups have echoed this view, warning that the government’s selective obedience to court rulings amounts to a slow erosion of the rule of law.
A Federal High Court recently reaffirmed that Kanu should face trial, rejecting moves by his legal team to have the charges dismissed. Yet the proceedings have been repeatedly adjourned, and concerns over his health continue to mount. The government, citing national security and the need to preserve order, insists that the case is sensitive. But even if that argument holds, it does not explain the creeping reluctance to heed judicial directives that ought to guide the process.
Observers believe that the government’s approach betrays a troubling pattern of executive defiance. A democracy cannot survive where the executive cherry-picks which court orders to obey and which to ignore. If court judgments can be disregarded without consequence, what confidence can citizens place in the justice system?
Beyond the legal debate lies a moral question: what message does the prolonged detention of Kanu send to other Nigerians? For a government that campaigned on the promise of renewed hope, the optics of ignoring court rulings and stifling dissent seem painfully at odds with democratic ideals. The continued incarceration of a man whose case is still being contested in court raises doubts about whether Nigeria’s leaders are truly committed to the principles they swore to uphold.
It is in this climate that NANS, alongside other civic groups and activists, including former presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore, is taking to the streets. Their demand is simple—justice and accountability. Yet, by choosing to ignore such calls and court pronouncements alike, the Federal Government risks deepening public mistrust.
The protest itself carries enormous implications. Should the government attempt to suppress it, it will only reinforce the growing perception of state intolerance. If it allows it, it concedes—at least symbolically—that Nigerians still have a voice in their democracy. In either case, the government now finds itself, as it is often said, “between the devil and the deep blue sea.”
What should the government do? The path forward is not complicated. It must obey court orders without ambiguity, fast-track judicial proceedings with transparency, and separate legal justice from political calculation. Doing otherwise undermines the very foundation of democratic governance.
As October 20 approaches, the protest will be about more than one man’s freedom. It will be a referendum on Nigeria’s democracy, on whether power will continue to override justice, and whether the courts still stand as the last hope of the common man.