In modern political theory, the concept of a state is deeply rooted in the social contract: citizens surrender certain freedoms in return for the security and services a state provides, thereby legitimising its authority. When a group within that state agitates for secession or actively encourages violence, the integrity of that contract — and of the federation itself — comes into question. Using the case of Nnamdi Kanu and the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) as a case-study, this article dissects state theory and shows why his release would undermine the social contract, why no sitting President would welcome secession under his watch, and why Omoyele Sowore’s use of the protest around Kanu’s detention is self-serving rather than patriotic.
1. Theoretical Foundations: State theory & Social Contract
The “state” in political theory is not simply a territory with people; it is the institutionalisation of the collective will of the citizens via rules, rights and obligations. Classic exponents such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean‑Jacques Rousseau framed the social contract as that tacit agreement where individuals give up certain freedoms in exchange for protection of their lives, rights and property.
Applied in the Nigerian context, scholars argue that the Nigerian state and its federal structure must be seen as the outcome of a contract: citizens accept (implicitly or explicitly) the rules of the federation in return for fair governance, security, equality and opportunity.
If a part of that federation seeks to withdraw (secede), or undermines the contract by encouraging violence or breakdown of order, then the legitimacy of the contract (and hence the legitimacy of the state’s authority) is challenged.
Furthermore, in a federal system such as Nigeria’s, the concept of loyalty to the federated whole is central: the federating units and the citizenry accept the framework, the rules, the constitution. Breaking away would amount to rejecting the contract.
Hence, when a movement (such as IPOB) agitating for secession is involved, the state is faced not only with a political challenge but also a theoretical one: a break in the social contract, undermining the principle that citizens remain bound to the collective entity they helped form.
2. The Nigeria Federation: Why a President Would Resist Secession
From the perspective of a head of state, several imperatives make secession unacceptable:
National sovereignty: A President is sworn to uphold the constitution of the federation (in Nigeria’s case, the 1999 Constitution). Any secessionist movement undermines the integrity of the state.
Security risks: If one region withdraws, the remaining federation may become destabilised, leading to internal conflict, economic disruption, and perhaps external intervention.
Precedent-setting: Allowing one region to secede may prompt others to follow, thus fracturing the federation entirely.
Social contract obligations: The President must protect the rights and safety of all citizens under the contract. If a region withdraws under violent agitation, the contract with the rest is broken.
From the social-contract lens, the federation exists because citizens accept its rule; to allow secession would be to accept that the contract can be unilaterally broken by a subgroup, which undermines the entire principle of legitimacy.
In short: no sane President would welcome secession under his watch — it is a repudiation of the social contract, the state-theory basis of government, and the very legitimacy of the federation.
3. Case Study: Nnamdi Kanu, IPOB and the Evidence of Incitement
The case of Nnamdi Kanu and IPOB provides concrete instances of how the social contract is being challenged.
IPOB has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation in Nigeria and has been “implicated in inciting and acts of violence against the state and other actors.”
In June 2025, the Department of State Services (DSS) told a court that Kanu used a smuggled radio transmitter to “incite violence and spread secessionist messages” and to enforce IPOB’s sit-at-home orders in the South-East, which caused economic paralysis.
There are also recent police warnings that pro-Kanu protests are being used as cover for incitement, weapons, public-order offences and terrorist activities.
Reports (for example from SBM Intelligence) claim that the sit-at-home protests in the South-East (initiated by IPOB) have led to hundreds of deaths and huge economic losses (7.6 trillion naira) since 2021.
These facts are significant: they show that Kanu (via IPOB) is more than a dissident; his movement actively challenges the security, economy and constitutional framework of the Nigerian state. From a social contract perspective, Kanu is undermining the contract by calling for secession and inciting violence against the federation that citizens have accepted.
4. Why Kanu Should Not Be Released: Social Contract Justification
Given the evidence and theoretical framework, the argument is that Kanu should not be released from detention (pending due legal process) for the following reasons:
1. Protection of the collective over one subgroup: The social contract binds citizens to the state; when a subgroup seeks to break off and incites violence in the process, releasing its leader would send the message that the contract can be upended.
2. State legitimacy requires enforcement of law: The state must show it can protect its citizens, enforce law and preserve order. Failure to hold accountable those who incite violent secession weakens legitimacy.
3. Preventing precedent of secession through violence: If Kanu is released because of pressure, the incentive for other groups to take up arms or mass agitation to achieve secession is increased.
4. Obligation of allegiance in the contract: Citizens (and their leaders) accept the state’s authority when they join the contract. Kanu’s agitation for secession rejects that allegiance — releasing him would thus reward contractual breach.
5. Preservation of federal unity and common good: Social contract theory emphasises the “general will” (Rousseau) or the rational will of the people to form a commonwealth. A movement that says “we break away” negates that general will. The state must act.
Therefore, until the legal process is concluded, and given that the evidence shows incitement to violence and active secessionism, the principles of state theory and social contract justify withholding release.
5. Addressing Criticisms & Counter-arguments
It is fair to acknowledge counter-arguments:
Some will say that Kanu is being treated unfairly or politically. Indeed, issues of due process matter. The court must afford fair hearing, and it appears that his trial is ongoing.
Another argument: the Eastern region may feel legitimately marginalised, and secession is argued as a remedy. While marginalisation may exist, social contract theory does not grant unilateral secession through violence; rather, it calls for negotiation, fair representation, constitutional reform.
Releasing him may calm tensions. However, releasing a figure who has incited violence may encourage more instability rather than calm. The root causes must be addressed organisationally rather than symbolically.
Thus, while justice and fairness must be preserved, they must not come at the cost of undermining the contract and the state framework.
6. Omoyele Sowore and the Politics of the #FreeNnamdiKanu Protest
Omoyele Sowore: a known activist who is now cast in the spotlight as leader of the #FreeNnamdiKanu protests. His role raises important questions about motive, strategy, and the intersection of activism and politics.
Reports show that Sowore mobilised supporters for the #FreeNnamdiKanu demonstration.
A presidential aide has accused Sowore of using the protest as “PR agitation and courting public sympathy to interfere with judicial proceedings … These are stunts we could never try in Europe or America.”
The suggestion is that Sowore is not simply organising a people’s protest but is using Kanu’s detention as a political tool to portray the administration of Bola Tinubu as “anti-people” or repressive. Indeed, the press is reporting that the lawyer for Kanu was arrested while participating in the protest led by Sowore.
From a people-centric perspective: protests are valid when they aim to strengthen the social contract, uphold rights, advance justice. But when activism channels into personal ambition or political grandstanding, it risks becoming counterproductive. In this case, one may legitimately ask:
Is Sowore acting primarily as an activist or is he positioning himself as a political entrepreneur through this protest?
Does his leadership of the protest help or hinder the legal process, given that the authorities are warning against violent protest tactics in the name of Kanu’s release?
Is the focus on the individual (Kanu’s release) overshadowing the broader issues of federal unity, rule-of-law and long-term solutions to grievances?
In short: Sowore should make a clear choice—either he is an unswerving activist dedicated to rule-of-law, or he steps into partisan politics and surrenders the purity of activism. Trying to straddle both may undermine both.
Conclusion & Recommended Way Forward
In conclusion, the case of Nnamdi Kanu and IPOB challenges the fundamentals of state theory and the social contract in Nigeria’s federal system. The evidence (of incitement, secessionist agitation and disruption of the federation) justifies withholding Kanu’s release until the legal process concludes. From the vantage of a President sworn to protect the federation, allowing secessionist agitation to go unpunished would risk the contract, the state’s legitimacy and national security.
At the same time, activists like Omoyele Sowore must reflect on the purpose of their protest: is it advancing the common good or personal positioning? If the movement for #FreeNnamdiKanu is to be truly people-centric, it must remain anchored in the rule of law, federal stability, and the welfare of all Nigerians—not simply one individual or one region.
Recommended next steps:
The judiciary should proceed swiftly, fairly and transparently in Kanu’s trial so that justice is seen to be done.
The federal government should open structured dialogue with the South-East region to address actual grievances (marginalisation, economic disadvantage, restructuring), reaffirming the social contract in practice.
Civil-society actors and protesters should focus their energies on institutional reform rather than symbolic release of detained figures.
Activists should clarify their roles—clear line between civil society protest and political ambition must be maintained.
By grounding activism in the theory of citizen-state obligations (the social contract) rather than spectacle, Nigeria may strengthen its federation, rather than see it unravel.