Former presidential candidate, Omoyele Sowore, on Monday drew attention to the personal and political risks faced by separatist leaders in Nigeria, using the cases of Nnamdi Kanu and Sunday Igboho to illustrate the consequences of different approaches to government engagement.

Speaking in a recent interview, Sowore said Kanu’s continued detention stems from his refusal to accept certain conditions reportedly offered by the federal government—a decision that contrasts with Igboho, who has allegedly engaged with authorities under similar terms. “Nnamdi Kanu is in jail today because he’s different from Sunday Igboho,” Sowore said.

The activist and politician underscored that Kanu’s principled stance has long-term implications for both personal freedom and political influence. Sowore noted that his recent meeting with Kanu reinforced the idea that the separatist leader’s choices are deeply personal and strategic, rather than transactional.

Sowore also warned that figures like Igboho risk damaging their legacy by embracing transactional politics, describing it as a short-term strategy with long-term consequences. He compared such approaches to historical political figures who lost public trust after aligning too closely with government interests.

“Their brand of politics is what I call ‘chop I chop,’” Sowore said, emphasizing that prioritizing immediate gain over principles can result in lasting reputational harm. He cautioned that such decisions might lead to international scrutiny, especially for leaders operating in sensitive political contexts.

The former presidential candidate’s remarks framed the debate around leadership choices, accountability, and the consequences of compromise in high-stakes political struggles. Sowore suggested that the path chosen by separatist leaders not only affects their political relevance but also sets a precedent for how dissent is treated in Nigeria.

Sowore concluded that leaders must weigh personal and political decisions carefully, highlighting the wider implications of detention, negotiation, and compromise. The commentary offers insight into the human and strategic dimensions of separatist politics, reminding the public of the broader stakes involved beyond immediate headlines.