Nnamdi Kanu, US activist issue ‘Sokoto Declaration,’ call for self-determination, national reform

Opinion

ABUJA, Nigeria (NPA) — The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, and a United States-based activist, Mike Arnold, have jointly issued a document titled The Sokoto Declaration, calling for sweeping political reforms, self-determination, decentralisation of governance and what they described as a national awakening against insecurity, displacement and alleged state oppression in Nigeria.

The five-page declaration, dated May 30, 2026, was released in Kanu’s name and was authenticated by his counsel, Aloy Ejimakor.

The document presents a broad critique of Nigeria’s political structure, security architecture and historical evolution, while proposing a new constitutional framework built on self-determination, regional autonomy and popular sovereignty.

Kanu and Arnold described themselves as individuals from different backgrounds who had arrived at a shared conviction regarding what they termed the need to address long-standing structural and political problems confronting the country.

The declaration paints a grim picture of Nigeria’s security and humanitarian situation, alleging that millions of people across different regions have suffered violence, displacement, poverty and political marginalisation over several decades. The authors cited the Nigerian civil war, insurgency in the North-East and attacks on communities in various parts of the country as evidence of what they called a prolonged national crisis.

According to the document, the violence and instability experienced across the country are not inevitable but are the result of political choices that can be reversed through collective action by citizens.

“We hold these truths,” the declaration stated, arguing that every individual, regardless of ethnicity, religion or region, possesses the right to life, liberty and self-determination. The authors maintained that displaced persons across the country should be allowed to return safely to their ancestral homes and receive justice and restitution.

The declaration stressed that the grievances of different ethnic and regional groups should not be viewed in isolation, insisting that no community holds a monopoly on suffering.

“We do not seek liberty for one people alone, but for all who suffer under injustice,” the document stated, adding that any future political arrangement should be based on freedom, equity, justice, fairness and the rule of law.

One of the central themes of the declaration is self-determination. The authors argued that the right of people to determine their political future is protected under both Nigerian and international law.

The document cited provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and claimed that the continued detention and prosecution of Kanu, alongside restrictions on calls for self-determination, amounted to violations of rights guaranteed under both domestic and international legal frameworks.

Kanu and Arnold also criticised what they described as excessive centralisation of political and security powers in Nigeria. According to them, a highly centralised state has contributed to insecurity, weakened local communities and reduced the ability of regions to protect their people.

The declaration argued that natural resources should primarily benefit local communities and condemned what it described as the exploitation of resources in areas affected by violence and displacement.

“The wealth under this ground belongs to the people who live on it,” the document stated, while calling for greater local control over resources and economic development.

The authors further argued that Nigerians should not depend solely on foreign governments, international organisations or external powers to resolve domestic challenges.

“No one is coming to save us. No outside power will hand us our freedom,” the declaration stated, urging citizens to take responsibility for political and social change.

Despite its strong criticism of the Nigerian state, the declaration stopped short of calling for violent action. Instead, it called for what it described as “courageous, coordinated, disciplined and unrelenting resistance,” including participation in elections, legal challenges, international advocacy and peaceful civic engagement.

The authors said they rejected revenge, vengeance and indiscriminate violence but maintained that communities have a right to defend themselves against attacks. “Peace is not passivity. Peace is strength under restraint,” the declaration stated.

The document also called on various groups within the pro-Biafra movement to end internal divisions and work towards common objectives.

“To our Biafran brothers and sisters: public infighting must end,” the declaration stated, warning that divisions within the movement could undermine its goals.

In addition, the declaration advocated a fundamental restructuring of Nigeria through what it described as an internationally supervised constitutional process that would allow citizens to determine the future political arrangement of the country.

The authors argued that genuine national unity can only emerge from consent rather than coercion.

They called for a new constitutional order that would recognise self-determination while enabling cooperation among different peoples and regions.

Addressing the international community, the declaration urged foreign governments, human rights organisations, faith groups and civil society actors to support what it described as the struggle for justice and freedom in Nigeria.

It accused the international community of paying insufficient attention to violence, displacement and human rights concerns in the country and urged greater engagement with affected communities.

The authors also directed part of the declaration at political leaders and public officials, warning that history would judge those who perpetuate injustice, corruption and repression.

“History is watching,” the document stated, while urging those in authority to embrace accountability, reform and reconciliation.

A significant portion of the declaration focused on what the authors described as a vision for a post-conflict and reformed Nigeria. They envisaged a country in which displaced persons return home, communities rebuild their institutions, and regional economies flourish under a more decentralised political system.

The declaration argued that Nigerians have demonstrated excellence in fields such as medicine, law, engineering, business and the arts whenever given opportunities to thrive.

According to the authors, a more inclusive political system could unlock the country’s economic and human potential and transform it into a prosperous and influential African democracy.

The document concluded with a call for perseverance, unity and moral discipline, urging supporters not to allow the movement for change to be overtaken by hatred, tribalism or personal ambition.

“The cause is life. The cause is liberty. The cause is the right of every human being on this land to live in peace,” the declaration stated.

The declaration was signed by Kanu and Arnold and authenticated by Ejimakor, who identified himself as special counsel to the IPOB leader.

The publication is expected to generate debate among political actors, constitutional scholars, civil society groups and advocates of restructuring, many of whom have long argued over the future of Nigeria’s federal system, regional autonomy and the question of self-determination.