₦airaland Forum

this is nothing new, like we have seen this many times

They say e be young man

Na this old man Dem dey slap like this

Reno didn’t become an ambassador by accident. His rise is the result of clear political and media calculations that made him the right person at the right time.

First, his nomination fits Nigeria’s long-standing tradition of ethnic and regional balancing. Sharing the same background with the First Lady positioned him naturally for consideration.

Second, Reno has something most public figures don’t, media firepower. He defended Nigeria loudly, consistently and in front of international audiences. From challenging accusations of Christian genocide to correcting misinformation, he became a reliable voice for the country.

Third, politics rewards loyalty. Reno took heat, stood firm and pushed national narratives even when it wasn’t popular. Governments always remember people who fight their battles publicly.

Fourth, he brings international visibility and cultural representation. He wears Nigerian attire everywhere, showcases the culture boldly, and connects with diaspora communities, a soft-power asset any administration wants.

Finally, there’s the power of strategic controversy. Whether people agree with him or not, Reno commands attention. In politics, visibility is currency and he is never ignored.

No explanation just blame the devil, which kind of mentality is this?

They even use the word people instead of men.

This looks like a PR laundering but then you brought Rape to the interview which literally means you are looking for pity.

Rape is a big thing and making it part of your public image as a professional is manipulative and a red flag

But you are on contract, not employed directly by the bank, why do you expect full time staff treatment.

It is not discrimination, the bank does not see you as their own.

J

mrvitalis:
When you see a paid write up you would know 100%

Can someone name me just one Muslim northern villages herdsmen have
1) chased out the owners of the name
2) replaced them and renamed the land

Yes, it is possible..so why are people in Idp?

dont mind him, he is doing it for his children

Using private armies, will just make the already long war longer

1nigeriamyfoot:
You definitely knows nothing about precision attack

US will first eliminate all their leaders one by one and go for their foot soldier thereafter

Precision attack ..lol...una too dey watch movies.

If precision attack was the solution then there won't be any terrorist group in the world.

MarketDispatch:
Why are you talking like this ..when Israel bombed those Hamas terrorists, did they wake up and relocate and melt and quickly disappear

Who told you that..they went into other places to regroup.

You think hamas just stay in one location, terrorists are smart too, they are humans and also shield themselves from arms.

Lmao...contacted bandit, like give them money and release those kidnapped to save face from international embarrassment

Those bandits always make money when a major kidnapping news breaks out internationally

Do you know why, it makes the government desperate and they start giving in to bandits request for money to free their captives and look good internationally

Then other bandits will be motivated to go out there and kidnap people to get their own money.

brain54:
Okay, that is good...

But lay down what terms? The bandits don't have any terms. Nobody knows clearly what they are fighting for. Even they themselves don't seem to know what terms they are fighting for.

They is absolutely nothing to decide diplomatically with bandits. When they don't keep their side of the bargain what do you do? Take them to court or what guarantees them to keep their words?

Negotiating with them is only funding and empowering them. They would use the money to acquire more sophisticated military hardware and use it to attack.


A better approach is intelligence gathering of how they move, their sponsors who must be cut of from source and the remaining ones in the bushes and forests fished out and wiped out with precision.

All these are possible it's just that the Nigerian army is very incompetent and reliant on old war strategies and technology. Nigerian army is very unseriousness really.

And then also the political will to fight banditry is also lacking.

With modern technology and if the US decides to intervene (which I am not in support of by the way except if they decide to support with Intel and hardware etc) what they would do is determine their positions in the forests, tracking their movements and go after them.


You asked someone a question earlier...is the Nigerian army also in a particular location and move together?

What you wrote are good on paper but in reality unrealistic.

Any bandit in the bush know the reason why they are there.

Intelligence gathering does not work and it has been proven lot of time, infact identifying sponsors won't stop them because mapping out sponsor maps is hard when you consider that they don't use the banking system.

The war has been going on for ages and nothing is working that means it was a failure.

The only option right now is negotiations.

thesolutions:
You are probably one of them to know all that.
Winter is coming. I hope you post your experience when it come.

You just type out of emotions instead of thinking

I guess yes, with the way things are going and the company right to good public image

Logically, No, when we are young we have done stuff or written stuff because of youthfulness, people grow up but why use his past to judge his future, that is unfair

But I get the company point of view, they have a name and image to protect.

brain54:
What kind of negotiations...?

Is it to end banditry, to ask them to only operate within certain areas. Or to negotiate an amount to pay them money occasionally or periodically?

Pls be specific!

political negotiation, paying money isnt substainable but it can be an option

i can not be specific, it is up to them to lay down their own terms and govt laying their own terms. then they decide through diplomacy

thesolutions:
You are not correct.
Terrorist Bandits do not go about their operations with their captors. We have seen video of them on bikes. Only one operations is needed to decimate them.
But let me assure you. If US come in today, you will realize that all those news of terrorist bandits and Boko Haram shooting down air force jets are all lies. They were stolen by the compromised military in preparation for the main jihad. They will have to bring them out to try defend themselves. You probably know this.
We have not forgotten how they were able to hijacked complex military wares that the military personnels assigned to use them were trained in US. It's all part of the plan.
The president needs to give official invite to the US now to make things easier. If they choose to come in by themselves, that will be the end of his government. His own northern allies will eliminate him so as to command the Nigerian Army against US intervention.

what are you even typing.

if bandits are on bikes, that makes them mobile

so you think all bandits move together, there are a lot of groups.

if you blow up one camp in this location, the others will move to another location, infact there are those who will enter trailers with their moter bikes and move to the south.

the people are humans not machines, they move from places to places.

brain54:
So what do you suggest to end banditry sir...?

negotiations. they have leaders who control them, govt need to bring them to the table.

If America suddenly decides to bomb bandits, the result won’t be what people expect. Bandits aren’t like military bases or stationary equipment, they’re mobile. They move in small units, relocate quickly and disappear the moment they sense danger.

So even if the US. hits a camp, destroys weapons, or wipes out a food depot, the fighters will simply relocate. They’ll melt into nearby communities or shift their operations to safer zones. Bombing them doesn’t automatically end the threat, it just pushes it somewhere else.

The real danger is displacement. Instead of eliminating the problem, you risk scattering these groups into new regions, especially places that aren’t prepared for that kind of pressure. A massive external military strike could unintentionally spread the threat into more parts of the country, creating new conflicts instead of ending the old one.

This is why counter-insurgency is complex. Heavy airstrikes don’t solve everything, they can create powerful shockwaves that reshape the conflict in ways that are dangerous for everyone.

Nigeria cannot win the war against Boko Haram and bandits. It’s simple. We’ve been fighting these groups for more than 16 years, sending soldiers into the grinding machine and it’s clear that military force alone cannot defeat them.

The main reason isn’t Sambisa Forest or lack of weapons. The real problem is that these groups believe they are fighting in the name of their God. And any group that thinks it has a heavenly mandate becomes extremely difficult to defeat. History shows this pattern over and over again.

It’s easy to stop political or ethnic movements like IPOB because they are fighting for earthly goals. But groups driven by a so called holy mission don’t back down, they believe they are doing God’s work, so they fight with a different level of conviction.

That’s why Nigeria needs a different approach. These groups can recruit faster than the military can and force alone will not end a conflict rooted in ideology. The only realistic path to ending this war is negotiation, dialogue and a strategy that goes beyond bullets. That’s how this kind of conflict ends.

Paystack:
He's a multi billionaire dude.

They sold paystack for $200million few years ago.

He's richer than all your bloodline since creation put together

na you make am billionaire

selling paystack when you own the company is different from selling paystack when you ave investors

Worryingly:
He is not "just an employee". He is a member of the board and a cofounder.

He co founder the company, obviously that gives him the right to be on the board.

He doesn't own Major shares, that means he can be sacked at any time

You obviously don't understand share dilution,

Maj196:
Sacked from the company I founded

Yes it happens, he is just an employee , he obviously does not own major shares

Investors are the real owners

You can be sacked from the company you created.

He gave all his all to some liberal women they still stab him

He supported all their cause even gave the judas $55k loan but he still got stabbed

Hi

Shadow225:
Question 5: But didnt he call for security operatives to be killed

Chatgpt: Good question. Yes — there is evidence (from the prosecution in his trial) that Kanu made broadcasts calling on his followers to kill security operatives:

In court, a DSS witness said Kanu “ordered his followers to … kill Nigeria security officers.”

The court held that his broadcasts “encouraged … killing of Nigeria security officers.”

According to the court, more than 170 security personnel died after his broadcasts.



---

But — calling for killing is not the same as personally carrying out or ordering detailed military operations, legally speaking:

A judge has to assess whether he personally planned or commanded each killing, not just made inflammatory speeches.

The strength of his sentencing depends on the legal proof: Did he give concrete orders? Did he facilitate weapons? Is there a direct chain of command?



---

So, yes — he did make calls for violence against security operatives, and that was part of what the court used to convict him for “incitement.” But to justify a very heavy sentence, the court still needs solid, proven evidence of his responsibility for specific violent acts.

Question 6: But didnt he also ask for funding to purchase weapons?

Chatgpt: Yes — there is some evidence presented in court that Kanu asked for funding to buy weapons.

However — there are also serious doubts and contradictions:

A DSS witness said no “terrorism weapons” were found on him when he was arrested.

The court rejected some of the government’s evidence on legal-ground issues.



---

My assessment:

Yes, his rhetoric included solicitation for weapons.

But the actual proof of him having or using weapons is weak (at least according to court testimony).

Legally, soliciting funds is different from actually purchasing, storing, or using weapons — and that distinction matters for sentencing.


If I were judging, I would treat the calls for funding as a serious red flag, but not automatically assume he successfully obtained or used arms — unless the prosecution proved that in court.

Question 7: But were there not witnesses in court?

Chatgpt: Yes — there were witnesses in court. For example:

A DSS operative (PW-4) testified that Kanu, in his broadcasts, “directed his followers … to deal decisively with … security agents.”

That same witness said between 170 and 200 security operatives died in the South East allegedly because of his orders.

Another DSS witness (PW-5) claimed 233 security personnel were killed during the #EndSARS protests, linking it to Kanu’s incitement.

The DSS also said they recovered a radio transmitter that they allege was smuggled into Nigeria by Kanu.



---

However — having witnesses is not the same as having irrefutable proof:

On cross-examination, some witnesses admitted they did not directly investigate Kanu himself.

The DSS admitted no weapons were found when he was arrested, according to at least one testimony.

The witness who testified about the radio transmitter also said the DSS did not document how it got into the country.



---

Conclusion:
Yes, there were witnesses who made serious allegations against him — but not all of their claims are uncontested, and some parts of the prosecution’s case (especially around weapons) are disputed or lack clear documentation.

Question 8: But if he called for the deaths of security operatives, and solicited for weapons, and later on security operatives were killed in his name, isnt that serious grounds

Chatgpt: Yes — those are serious grounds, but they are not automatically enough for a lawful conviction or sentencing.
Let me break it down clearly, the way a real judge would think:


---

✅ 1. Calling for killings = serious grounds, but NOT automatically guilt for actual killings

Incitement to violence is a crime.
But legally, it is different from:

murder

terrorism

directing armed groups

commanding specific attacks


A judge must ask:

> Did his words directly cause specific killings — and can this be proven beyond reasonable doubt?



If the answer is not proven, then you cannot give the maximum punishment even if the rhetoric was dangerous.


---

✅ 2. Soliciting funds for weapons = serious grounds, BUT…

Legally, the prosecution must show:

money was actually sent

weapons were actually bought

weapons were used

there is a chain connecting Kanu → weapons → killings


In court, DSS witnesses admitted they did not find weapons on him, and they could not fully establish the chain.

So the court has partial evidence (words) but not complete evidence (actions).

Courts cannot fill in missing evidence with assumption.


---

✅ 3. “People were killed in his name” vs. “He commanded the killings”

This is the core issue.

People killing “in your name” does not mean you legally ordered them.

Example:

If a pastor says “go and fight your oppressors”, and some followers go too far and kill someone, the pastor is morally responsible — but not automatically criminally responsible unless:

he gave clear, specific, intentional orders

to commit that exact act

and it can be proven


Courts require a direct chain, not emotional connection.


---

✅ 4. Why judges are careful in such cases

Because if judges start convicting people based on:

what others did “in their name”

or based on speeches alone

or based on political pressure


…then anyone who makes a provocative political statement could be jailed for life.

That would be extremely dangerous for human rights.


---

✅ 5. So your question is valid: Are these serious grounds?

✔️ YES

They are very serious grounds for investigation and possible prosecution.

❌ NOT AUTOMATICALLY

grounds for a terrorism or murder conviction without clear, admissible, direct proof.


---

⭐ What this means in plain English

Kanu’s rhetoric was dangerous.
His speeches contributed to an environment of violence.
But dangerous speeches are not enough for a life sentence unless directly linked to specific crimes.

A judge must sentence based on proven actions, not inferred responsibility.


---

If you want, I can also explain the difference between political responsibility and legal responsibility, which is what confuses many people in his case.

Chatgpt isn't Nigerian law.

You left the part where the group he created killed people because of his rhetoric

You only typed what you want chatgpt to answer.

Why didn't you type that he asked for funding to buy arms. And if it is lawful for a Nigerian citizen to ask for funding for arms.

You also didn't ask chatgpt, if calling for the killing of security operatives is legal

Using terrestrial signals to call on unknown gun men to disrupt the peace.

After you have asked chatgpt these questions, then ask it if the law was right to sentence him to life imprisonment

A lot of accounts we assumed were MAGA Americans turned out to be Nigerians, Indians, and Pakistanis cosplaying as Americans. These accounts weren’t just causing friction on twitter, many were shaping public opinion and even influencing conversations around US. foreign policy, all while pretending to be real Americans.

Twitter’s new location update exposed even more, several beautiful American women accounts with massive followings were actually run from Nigeria.

And ever since the update rolled out, many of these accounts have quietly deleted themselves.

The only thing most Nigerians focus on is politics

Sometimes, you will wonder if they have any hobbies apart from talking about politics non stop

Twitter just rolled out a new feature that shows the country you’re tweeting from and it’s exposing a lot of accounts.

Turns out many profiles we all assumed were Americans or Nigerians were actually tweeting from completely different countries, pushing narratives and propaganda from the outside.

Even if you use a VPN, Twitter will flag it. A question mark icon will appear on your location, indicating your real region couldn’t be verified.

The timeline is about to get very interesting.

KLEINBASS:
The aim is to make Africa an inferior continent also pushing the white superiority racism agenda, I see Nigerians celebrating the he won’t come. Their media is not doing them justice because one of the reasons he gave for not coming is the fact that South Africa invited the likes of Nigeria and too many African countries to be guests which according to USA those countries are not relevant to international politics.

You are right.

The US are trying to push that whites are being discriminated forgetting that blacks were at the mercy of whites at one time.

Sad sad day for him

The issue with him is that he is too arrogant

The irony is that The British passport could not save him

Finish passport could not save sam ekpa