Sunday Dare, special adviser to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu on Media and Public Communication, has firmly rejected suggestions in some quarters that there is no distinction between incarcerated Nnamdi Kanu and Sunday Adeyemo.
In a statement issued on Tuesday, February 17, Dare maintained that there is “no basis for comparison” between the two figures, stressing that their actions, methods and consequences are fundamentally different.
Dare argued that Kanu crossed into armed rebellion and violent enforcement that affected, while Igboho “remained largely defensive and localised against perceived external threats, without the same level of state-targeted insurgency.”
Dare contended that by contrast, Igboho’s ‘activism’ was centred on defending communities in the south-west against criminal activities attributed to some killer herders, alongside ‘peaceful agitation’ for a Yoruba nation.
Vanguard quoted the presidential spokesperson as saying: “This included enforcement of ‘sit-at-home’ orders (often through threats and violence), resulting in numerous deaths (reports cite over 700 fatalities linked to enforcement clashes and defiance killings).
Other inimical activities include attacks on security forces, destruction of public infrastructure, and the formation of armed groups like Eastern Security Network (ESN).
“Kanu’s rhetoric and actions escalated to calls that many viewed as inciting violence against the state and even against his own people in the southeast who defied orders.”
The statement continued, according to The Punch: “In contrast, Sunday Igboho’s activism centered on defending Yoruba communities, primarily against alleged killings, kidnappings, and farm destructions by suspected herders. He focused on self-defence, warding off criminal elements from Yorubaland.
“Igboho also deployed peaceful agitation for Yoruba self-determination/Oduduwa Nation without establishing a militia to fight the Nigerian military, without ordering attacks on police/soldiers, and without imposing paralysing enforcement measures like sit-at-home orders that harmed civilians or the economy in his region.”
Dare concluded: “Public discourse should stop equating the two; the contexts, methods, and consequences are fundamentally different.”
