The Mandate 27 Group has defended the former Speaker of the Abia State House of Assembly, Rt. Hon. Chinedum Enyinnaya Orji, over questions surrounding his involvement in efforts to secure the release of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
In a statement addressing concerns raised by one Godwin Asiegbu, the group maintained that Orji’s contributions to discussions surrounding Kanu’s detention were largely conducted through legislative institutions, political consultations and diplomatic engagements rather than public demonstrations or social media campaigns.
According to the group, expecting the former Speaker to have made Facebook Live broadcasts or public declarations demanding Kanu’s release overlooks the responsibilities and limitations associated with his former legislative positions.
The group explained that during Orji’s tenure as Majority Leader of the Abia State House of Assembly between 2015 and 2019, Kanu’s legal challenges were already attracting national attention, particularly following his arrest in 2015, subsequent bail in 2017 and the military operation in Afaraukwu, Umuahia.
It argued that issues relating to terrorism and treasonable felony fall within federal jurisdiction, making it necessary for state lawmakers to exercise caution when commenting on matters before the Federal High Court.
Mandate 27 Group stated that the Abia State House of Assembly, during the period, supported broader calls for dialogue, de-escalation and a political resolution to the crisis, consistent with positions advocated by Ohanaeze Ndigbo and the South East Governors’ Forum.
Speaking on Orji’s tenure as Speaker between 2019 and 2023, the group highlighted his membership of the Conference of Speakers of State Legislatures of Nigeria, describing the body as an important platform for addressing national security challenges.
It noted that the conference, through various communiqués issued in 2021 and 2022, called for reforms in Nigeria’s security architecture, the establishment of state police, improved community policing and constitutional restructuring.
According to the group, these institutional engagements provided opportunities for addressing security concerns in the South East, including tensions associated with Kanu’s detention and the enforcement of sit-at-home directives.
The group further recalled that the South East Caucus of the National Assembly, on September 15, 2021, resolved to establish a committee to engage the Federal Government on the possibility of securing a political solution to Kanu’s case.
It maintained that Orji, as Speaker of the Abia State House of Assembly at the time, supported the broader regional position favouring dialogue and political intervention.
Mandate 27 Group also referenced subsequent resolutions by the Abia State House of Assembly calling on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to consider invoking Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution in addressing Kanu’s prosecution.
The group argued that such legislative interventions reflected the importance of institutional engagement in seeking solutions to politically sensitive national issues.
Addressing allegations previously made against Orji and other Abia political figures over insecurity in the state, the group recalled that Kanu’s family had reportedly cautioned against accusing individuals without credible evidence.
It insisted that Orji remained committed to institutional advocacy despite political criticisms and allegations directed at him.
The group also cited Orji’s remarks during the inauguration of the City Boy Movement on February 18, 2026, where he reportedly advocated a negotiated political settlement as a means of resolving Kanu’s continued detention.
According to the statement, the former Speaker’s position was consistent with calls by prominent South East political leaders, including Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Kalu, for political and diplomatic intervention in Kanu’s case.
Mandate 27 Group maintained that Orji’s approach to the matter had remained consistent over the years, moving from what it described as institutional advocacy during his legislative career to more direct public support for a negotiated settlement after leaving office.
The group consequently dismissed suggestions that the absence of viral videos or social media campaigns meant that the former Speaker had made no contribution to efforts aimed at resolving the issue.
It challenged critics to distinguish between public political statements and engagements carried out through established government institutions.
The group concluded that Orji’s position on Nnamdi Kanu’s case should be assessed based on his legislative responsibilities, institutional affiliations and public statements rather than the visibility of his activities on social media.
It maintained that dialogue and political negotiations remain important options for addressing the longstanding controversy surrounding Kanu’s detention.
