Title: Presidency Rejects Kanu–Igboho Parallels, Cites Fundamental Differences Date Published: 17 February 2026 Description: The Presidency has dismissed comparisons between the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, and Yoruba nation activist, Sunday Adeyemo (Sunday Igboho), insisting that their actions, methods, and consequences are fundamentally different.The Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Public Communication and Orientation, Sunday Dare, made this clarification on Tuesday, stressing that there is no factual or legal basis for equating the two figures.Dare noted that Kanu, who was recently convicted by a Federal High Court in Abuja on terrorism-related charges, led an insurrectionist movement that engaged in armed confrontation with the Nigerian state, resulting in widespread violence and economic disruption across the South East.According to him, activities linked to Kanu and IPOB included the enforcement of sit-at-home orders through threats and violence, attacks on security personnel, destruction of public infrastructure, and the formation of armed groups such as the Eastern Security Network (ESN). He added that these actions reportedly led to the deaths of over 700 people and crippled commercial life in several South East states.The presidential aide further stated that Kanu’s rhetoric escalated to open calls that many interpreted as incitement to violence, sometimes against members of his own ethnic group who defied IPOB directives.In contrast, Dare said Igboho’s activism was rooted in defending communities in the South West against criminal activities allegedly perpetrated by rogue herders, including killings, kidnappings, and destruction of farmlands.He explained that Igboho’s agitation for Yoruba self-determination and the Oduduwa Nation was largely peaceful and defensive, without the establishment of armed militias to confront the Nigerian military or directives that paralysed civilian life and economic activities in the region.“The distinction is clear,” Dare said. “One crossed the line into armed rebellion and violent enforcement against the state, with severe consequences for his own people. The other remained largely localised, defensive, and did not engage in state-targeted insurgency.”He urged members of the public and commentators to refrain from equating the two figures, emphasising that their contexts, approaches, and impacts are markedly different and should be understood as such. Attached Images: ab94e5fbd4d58eec29900294d3d2378899ec78bb571ef50090f0fe39d3dae5d1.jpg Attached Video: None