Nnamdi Kanu Reveals Conditions To Reconcile With Federal Government

Sharing is caring

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has revealed conditions to achieve true reconciliation in Nigeria.

Ekweanaedo News reports that Kanu’s position was made public by his younger brother, Prince Emmanuel, after a recent visit to the IPOB leader.

According to the pro-Biafra activists, to achieve true reconciliation, the federal government must set up an international airport, seaport, and roads in the Southeast.

Nnamdi Kanu stated that this will bring the long-abandoned zone on par with other regions.

While insisting that he was not opposed to genuine restructuring, the IPOB leader said Nigeria should be restructured along the 1963 Constitution if proponents of restructuring are sincere also insisting that his position on the Nigeria project had not changed.

He blamed those who aborted his meeting with Igbo leaders scheduled for September 15, 2017, in Enugu for the current chaos in the Southeast.

Nnamdi Kanu argued that if his house had not been invaded a day before the meeting, perhaps the meeting would have addressed the issues fuelling the agitation for Biafra.

Meanwhile, a member of the House of Representatives for Umuahia North/Umuahia South/Ikwuano Federal Constituency of Abia State, Obi Aguocha, has slammed the immediate past President, Muhammadu Buhari, over the option of eliminating Nnamdi Kanu.

Ekweanaedo News learned that Buhari’s thoughts about the option of eliminating Nnamdi Kanu were conveyed in a new book written by his former aide, Femi Adesina.

In the book, Adesina said there was an option of eliminating Kanu, stating that bringing Kanu back to face trial in Nigeria was a favour.

In response, Aguocha, in a statement made available to journalists in Abuja on Monday, said the remarks by Buhari regarding Kanu’s handling are deeply concerning.

He called on Buhari to come out clean and confess all he did to Nnamdi Kanu and the Southeast while in office.

The lawmaker said that suggesting that the elimination of a citizen was an option, even in retrospect, is alarming and raises serious questions about the commitment to the rule of law and human rights.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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