IPOB is Hard to Crack, Chief of Defence Staff Lament , Explains Why IPOB Avoids Accepting Responsibility Of Violence in the South East

IPOB is Hard to Crack, Chief of Defence Staff Lament , Explains Why IPOB Avoids Accepting Responsibility Of Violence in the South East

IPOB is Hard to Crack, Chief of Defence Staff Lament , Explains Why IPOB Avoids Accepting Responsibility Of Violence in the South East

The Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Christopher Musa, has shed light on why the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) often refrains from claiming responsibility for violent incidents in the South East. Speaking to journalists, Musa outlined several strategic and political reasons behind this approach.

One of the key factors he highlighted is IPOB’s attempt to avoid legal and political consequences that could arise from being directly associated with violent acts. Claiming responsibility for such actions would subject the group to increased scrutiny from both the Nigerian government and international stakeholders, intensifying the challenges it already faces.

General Musa also pointed out that IPOB is keen on maintaining its public image as a peaceful movement advocating for the self-determination of Biafra. Under the leadership of Nnamdi Kanu, IPOB has frequently promoted non-violent methods such as peaceful protests and civil disobedience. Associating with violence, he noted, would undermine this narrative and potentially alienate supporters at home and abroad.

“Many foreign governments, human rights organizations, and sympathizers support IPOB’s cause on the condition that it remains peaceful. Any admission of violence could lead to a loss of this critical support,” Musa remarked.

The CDS further explained that not all violent acts attributed to IPOB are necessarily carried out by the group. He noted the presence of rogue elements and splinter factions that may act independently, sometimes using IPOB’s name to legitimize their activities or create confusion. According to him, the arrest of Nnamdi Kanu has exacerbated leadership fragmentation, making it harder for IPOB’s central command to maintain control over its members and supporters.

Additionally, General Musa emphasized the role of external actors in manipulating narratives around violence in the South East. He accused some groups and individuals of exploiting the situation to discredit IPOB’s cause. “The government and security agencies have also used this ambiguity to portray IPOB as a terrorist organization, further complicating the group’s efforts to gain legitimacy,” he added.

Another reason for IPOB’s reluctance to claim responsibility, Musa noted, is the need to maintain strategic flexibility. By denying involvement in violent acts, the group leaves room for peaceful negotiations and diplomatic engagement, both domestically and internationally.

In conclusion, General Musa described IPOB’s approach as a calculated strategy aimed at preserving its image, avoiding legal repercussions, and keeping its movement open to political solutions. However, he urged the group to denounce violence more explicitly to ensure lasting peace in the region.