The Indigenous People of Biafra has made an abrupt departure from a protest strategy that paralysed economic activity across the South-East for nearly five years, ordering the immediate and permanent termination of its Monday sit-at-home directive with effect from February 9, 2026. The announcement, delivered through IPOB’s spokesperson Emma Powerful in a statement issued on Sunday, represents one of the most significant tactical reversals in the proscribed group’s recent history and carries far-reaching implications for the region’s economy and the nature of the pro-Biafran struggle going forward.
According to the statement, the directive to suspend the sit-at-home comes directly from Nnamdi Kanu, the imprisoned IPOB leader currently held at Sokoto Correctional Centre. The group emphasised that Kanu “has staked everything on the line to ensure that our children return to school every Monday and that our people go about their lawful businesses without fear, intimidation or molestation.” The cancellation signals a pivot away from the mass demonstration format that defined IPOB’s public strategy since mid-2021, when the movement first instituted the stay-at-home order as a response to the forced rendition and detention of its leader.
The timing and reasoning behind this dramatic reversal remain multifaceted. While IPOB did not explicitly state new strategic directions, the statement contained pointed warnings about what the group characterised as infiltration and misuse of the sit-at-home by unauthorised actors seeking to destabilise the South-East under false pretences. “Some people are attempting to create fear, stage attacks or intimidate people into staying indoors under false flags,” the statement cautioned, suggesting that IPOB views the sit-at-home mechanism as having become compromised or counterproductive to its stated objectives.
Nnamdi Kanu, whose detention has become the central rallying point for IPOB activism, has been incarcerated since his June 2021 rendition from Kenya to Nigeria, a controversial extradition that sparked international human rights concerns and galvanised the group’s supporters. The sit-at-home, initially conceived as a weekly protest mechanism, became institutionalised across the five South-East states of Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu, and Imo, creating a cycle of economic disruption that affected commerce, education, healthcare services, and transportation networks. Markets remained shuttered, schools operated sporadically, and businesses faced systematic closures each Monday, a pattern that persisted with fluctuating intensity throughout 2022, 2023, 2024, and into 2025.
The economic toll of the sit-at-home has been substantial. The South-East, Nigeria’s second-largest economic zone by gross domestic product, experienced recurring losses estimated in billions of naira annually. Small traders, transport operators, students, and healthcare facilities bore the brunt of the disruptions. State governments, particularly in Anambra and Imo, attempted various interventions to break the cycle, with some authorities deploying security personnel to enforce reopening of markets or threatening traders with penalties for non-compliance. Anambra State Governor Chukwuma Soludo became a particular focal point of tension, pursuing aggressive market reopening policies that drew criticism from IPOB and its supporters, who characterised these actions as heavy-handed.
The sit-at-home also evolved beyond its original institutional framework. By 2023 and 2024, enforcement of the Monday closures had become decentralised, with local IPOB members, sympathisers, and sometimes unaffiliated actors using intimidation, violence, and property destruction to compel compliance. This created a scenario where the sit-at-home functioned less as a coordinated national protest and more as a mechanism of social control within communities. Reports of attacks on transport operators, threats against traders, and vandalism of shops attempting to open became increasingly common, particularly in Imo and Abia states. This erosion of voluntary participation into coercive enforcement appears to have contributed to IPOB’s decision to terminate the directive.
The group’s statement made this concern explicit, declaring that “any person or group identified as enforcing or enabling sit-at-home will be confronted wherever they are.” This language suggests an internal disciplinary posture, with IPOB positioning itself against actors it views as distorting its strategy. The statement further warned that perpetrators of unauthorised sit-at-home enforcement “will be pursued to the ends of the earth and confronted until they are completely defeated,” indicating a readiness for internal confrontation within the movement.
The cancellation also addresses a source of political friction within the South-East. State governments, particularly under governors aligned with the All Progressives Congress, had faced criticism for inadequate resistance to sit-at-home disruptions. Opposition governors and civil society groups argued that state administrations bore responsibility for allowing economic sabotage. The termination of the sit-at-home removes this political pressure point and may reflect calculations about the optimal use of IPOB’s social capital and enforcement capacity.
Notably, IPOB’s statement included a section defending the rights of individuals to sit at home voluntarily, apparently anticipating that some supporters might independently continue Monday closures as a gesture of solidarity with Kanu. “At the same time, IPOB wishes to make it clear that no state governor has the right to threaten, demolish or forcibly shut down the businesses of traders who, out of conscience, choose to sit at home in solidarity with our leader,” the statement asserted. However, it explicitly separated this from any organised directive: the institutional sit-at-home as an IPOB-mandated measure is terminated, but the group reserves the right to defend individuals who voluntarily abstain from commercial activity.
The statement also contained direct criticism of Anambra Governor Soludo’s market policy. IPOB warned that “any attempt by Governor Soludo or any other governor to intimidate our people with demolition threats or forced market closures will be firmly resisted.” This language suggests lingering tensions over the governor’s aggressive market reopening initiatives, which included threats of business demolition for prolonged non-compliance. IPOB demanded that any renovation or reconstruction of markets involving temporary relocation be conducted only with stakeholder consent and that adequate temporary trading sites be provided before commencement.
The shift also occurs within a broader context of internal IPOB dynamics. The movement has faced periodic splits and disagreements over strategy, leadership legitimacy, and operational direction. Kanu’s prolonged detention, despite legal cases pending before the Court of Appeal, has created governance challenges for a proscribed organisation attempting to coordinate activities across multiple states without direct leadership presence. By issuing this directive, Kanu appears to be reasserting centralised authority and resolving internal debates about sit-at-home enforcement.
From a legal standpoint, IPOB remains proscribed under Nigeria’s Terrorism (Prevention) Act, a designation imposed in 2017 that criminalises membership and support. The termination of the sit-at-home does not alter this legal status, but it may affect prosecutorial calculations regarding the group’s intentions. The sit-at-home, while disruptive, was generally characterised as peaceful and non-violent. Should the group transition to different operational modes, the legal implications remain uncertain.
The statement’s language about IPOB members visiting Sokoto Correctional Centre to confirm Kanu’s directive reflects the unusual status of a detained leader maintaining operational control over an outlawed movement. It suggests that prison authorities permit communication between Kanu and group leadership, raising questions about the extent of monitoring and the degree of autonomy afforded to the detained leader.
South-East state governments have not yet formally responded to IPOB’s cancellation directive as of the time of publication. The immediate practical question is whether compliance will be voluntary or whether alternative enforcement mechanisms will emerge. Previous IPOB directives terminating sit-at-home periods, most notably in April 2021 before the August revival, saw patchy compliance, with some communities maintaining closures despite official suspension. The group’s explicit threat to confront anyone enforcing sit-at-home going forward suggests a determination to prevent recurrence of this scenario.
IPOB’s statement concluded with an appeal for regional unity and a reorientation of the struggle toward “freedom, dignity and justice for all, not just for Biafrans,” language suggesting a potential broadening of the movement’s political positioning. Whether this rhetorical shift presages strategic evolution toward political engagement, legal activism, or alternative forms of protest remains unclear. The group has not articulated what replaces the sit-at-home as its primary mode of national and international attention-seeking.
The termination of the sit-at-home removes one of the most visible symbols of South-East restiveness and IPOB’s organisational capacity. For five years, the weekly closure of markets from Calabar to Awka served as a tangible expression of Biafran sentiment and grievance. With that mechanism now suspended, the group faces the challenge of maintaining momentum and mobilisation capacity through alternative strategies, a test that will shape the trajectory of pro-Biafran activism in the coming months.
