The Leader of INRI Evangelical Spiritual Church, Primate Elijah Ayodele, has stirred controversy after calling on the Federal Government to either release detained Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu or subject Islamic cleric Ahmad Gumi to similar legal treatment.
In a video statement released on June 13, 2026, Ayodele questioned what he described as inconsistencies in the handling of individuals linked to national security controversies, arguing that justice should be applied fairly and uniformly regardless of ethnic, regional, or religious considerations.
The cleric specifically referenced Kanu’s continued detention and conviction on terrorism-related charges, contrasting it with the activities of Sheikh Gumi, who has over the years engaged in dialogue and negotiations with armed bandits operating in parts of northern Nigeria.
According to Ayodele, if the government believes Kanu’s actions warrant imprisonment, then similar standards should be applied to other controversial figures whose engagements with criminal elements have generated public debate.
Kanu has remained one of Nigeria’s most polarizing political figures since his arrest and rendition from Kenya in 2021. The IPOB leader was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2025 following his conviction on terrorism-related charges connected to activities linked to Radio Biafra and separatist agitation.
However, his legal team continues to challenge the judgment, with an appeal currently pending before higher courts.
Ayodele’s comments have reignited debate over the government’s handling of separatist agitation, insecurity, and the application of justice in politically sensitive cases.
Supporters of Kanu welcomed the statement, arguing that it highlights concerns about perceived double standards in the treatment of individuals associated with security-related controversies. Many contend that the government should adopt a more balanced approach in dealing with agitators, religious figures, and other actors involved in conflict-related matters.
Several supporters also pointed to continuing unrest in parts of the South-East, arguing that dialogue and reconciliation may be more effective in addressing grievances than prolonged detention.
On the other hand, critics of Ayodele’s position insist that the circumstances surrounding Kanu and Gumi are fundamentally different and should not be directly compared.
They argue that criminal liability must be determined by evidence, investigations, and court proceedings rather than public perceptions or political sentiment. Some legal observers noted that Sheikh Gumi has not been formally charged with any criminal offence despite controversies surrounding his interactions with bandit groups.
The remarks have also sparked broader conversations about national unity, justice, and the government’s approach to resolving security challenges across different regions of the country.
Political analysts note that debates over Kanu’s detention remain highly sensitive because they touch on issues of separatism, constitutional order, human rights, and regional grievances.
Similarly, discussions surrounding Gumi often generate strong reactions due to the persistent threat posed by banditry and kidnapping in northern Nigeria.
As Kanu’s appeal process continues, observers say public pressure from religious leaders, political actors, and civil society groups is likely to sustain national attention on the case.
Whether through judicial review, political dialogue, or other mechanisms, the controversy underscores the continuing challenge of balancing security concerns, the rule of law, and demands for fairness in a deeply diverse society.
Ayodele’s intervention has added another voice to the growing debate over how Nigeria should address contentious security-related cases while maintaining public confidence in its justice system and commitment to equal treatment under the law.
