The arrest of Simon Ekpa, the self-proclaimed Prime Minister of the Biafra Government in Exile (BRGIE), by Finnish authorities last Thursday has reignited a fierce debate about his controversial role in the ongoing Biafra secession movement, a cause that has remained highly divisive both within Nigeria and among the international community. His detention has sparked a renewed examination of his actions and the impact of his leadership on the Biafra struggle.
Born on March 21, 1985, in Ohaukwu, Ebonyi State, Ekpa has become a polarizing figure within the broader Biafran agitation, which calls for the secession of the southeastern region of Nigeria to form an independent Biafran state. Over the years, Ekpa has emerged as one of the key figures in the movement, particularly after rising to prominence within the ranks of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). However, his actions and rhetoric have drawn sharp criticism from various factions, including the Nigerian government, IPOB leadership, and civil society groups, further complicating the already contentious secessionist cause.
Ekpa’s activities have been the subject of serious allegations, particularly claims of inciting violence and chaos in the southeast of Nigeria. According to Vanguard, Ekpa’s faction has been accused of financing and coordinating attacks carried out by armed groups and unknown gunmen, who have been responsible for widespread unrest, kidnappings, and assassinations across the region. The Nigerian government has linked Ekpa to terrorist activities, alleging that he has played a key role in funding violent secessionist actions. These include attacks attributed to the so-called unknown gunmen, whose actions have further destabilized an already volatile region and undermined attempts at peacebuilding.
Beyond the Nigerian government, IPOB, the group that Ekpa initially worked within, has distanced itself from him, sharply criticizing his leadership style and his handling of the movement’s resources. IPOB has accused Ekpa of exploiting his followers through manipulative tactics, including coercion and cult-like practices. The group has also raised concerns about mismanagement of funds intended for the cause, citing that Ekpa’s actions have not only harmed the Biafran struggle but also created deep divisions within the movement. IPOB’s leadership has made it clear that Ekpa’s views and activities no longer align with the official stance of the organization, and they have rejected his calls for violent actions, such as sit-at-home orders, which have disrupted daily life in southeastern Nigeria.
One of the most significant points of contention between Ekpa and IPOB’s leadership came in 2023, when escalating violence in the southeastern states prompted IPOB’s detained leader, Nnamdi Kanu, to issue a public directive calling for Ekpa to cease his calls for sit-at-home orders. These orders, which were intended to mobilize support for the Biafra cause, had resulted in severe economic and social disruptions in the region, exacerbating the suffering of ordinary people. In a letter written from detention, Kanu explicitly instructed Ekpa to stop issuing these orders, highlighting the negative consequences they had on the people of the southeast.
The letter, which was shared publicly by Kanu’s special counsel, Aloy Ejimakor, instructed Ekpa to immediately cease calling for any further sit-at-home actions and to refrain from antagonizing political figures. Kanu’s message underscored his commitment to a movement that sought to liberate the Biafran people, not one that caused unnecessary hardship. He stated: “Simon (Ekpa), this is a direct order from me. I hereby instruct you to desist from calling for any sit-at-home henceforth. Equally, refrain from antagonizing governors or persons in political positions because you are not in a position to know what they are doing on my behalf.”
Kanu’s letter, which was meant to clarify his position on the ongoing agitation, also included a directive for Ekpa to publicly acknowledge receipt of the order and announce the cessation of any future sit-at-home orders. Kanu further stressed that he abhorred any actions that would inflict harm on Biafrans, asserting that the goal of the movement was to liberate the people, not to enslave them. Kanu authorized his lawyer, Aloy Ejimakor, to issue a public statement if Ekpa failed to comply with this order.
Despite Kanu’s direct command, Ekpa remained defiant and dismissed the letter as a fabrication, accusing the Nigerian State Security Service (SSS) of being behind the document. In a strongly worded response, Ekpa rejected Kanu’s directive, calling the letter a “fake” created by what he referred to as the “Islamic SSS.” He urged Biafrans to ignore Kanu’s message, asserting his own authority as the Prime Minister of the Biafra Government in Exile. Ekpa’s dismissal of the letter further deepened the rift between him and IPOB leadership, as well as among Biafran separatists, who have found themselves torn between various factions within the movement.
As Ekpa faces legal challenges in Finland, where he was arrested, his arrest has brought renewed attention to the divisive and fractured nature of the Biafran movement. The conflict between Ekpa and Kanu, along with the criticisms from other quarters, underscores the complexities of the quest for Biafran independence, which has been marred by internal divisions, external pressures, and conflicting leadership claims. Ekpa’s arrest is unlikely to quell the ongoing agitation for Biafra’s independence, but it has certainly cast a spotlight on the internal disputes that continue to plague the movement.
The fate of the Biafran struggle remains uncertain, and as Ekpa’s legal battles unfold, it is clear that the movement is facing significant challenges not only from the Nigerian government but also from within its own ranks. The outcome of these internal conflicts could shape the future of the Biafra secessionist movement, which continues to command a passionate following, even as it remains fragmented and fraught with controversy.
