(DDM) – Pro-Biafra voices have pushed back against a recent editorial that called for a complete end to Monday sit-at-home in Nigeria’s South-East.
Diaspora Digital Media notes that the reaction frames the editorial as misleading and unrepresentative of many pro-Biafra supporters’ views.
Several self-identified Biafran advocates describe the publication as the work of detractors and mischief makers.
They argue that the narrative about the total collapse of compliance does not reflect realities in many communities.
They insist that the Monday directive remains symbolically important to their cause.
The campaign for Biafra is closely associated with Indigenous People of Biafra.
Supporters tie the continuation of sit-at-home to demands surrounding Nnamdi Kanu.
They maintain that the core demand remains his release from detention.
Some sympathizers say the directive represents civil protest rather than criminality.
They explain that many participants stay home voluntarily.
They add that fear alone does not explain the pattern of compliance.
They claim the protest serves as a reminder of unresolved political grievances.
They also argue that reducing the issue to economics ignores deeper identity concerns.
The contested editorial reviewed actions by past and present leaders.
It referenced the tenure of former president Muhammadu Buhari.
It also mentioned the current administration of Bola Tinubu.
Pro-Biafra respondents say government changes have not resolved their complaints.
They argue that political transitions did not automatically address their demands.
They further state that loyalty to the cause extends beyond any single administration.
Debate also surrounds the role of Simon Ekpa in the evolution of the orders.
His legal troubles in Finland remain part of the wider conversation.
Supporters nevertheless say the movement cannot be reduced to one figure abroad.
They describe it as a broader network of sympathizers.
Some regional officials have taken strong positions against the orders.
Commentary often cites Peter Mbah as an early opponent.
Others mention Chukwuma Soludo and his market-focused interventions.
Those interventions included actions around Onitsha Main Market.
Pro-Biafra voices counter that state directives do not equal public consensus.
They say some traders comply with reopening out of necessity.
They add that economic pressure does not erase political beliefs.
The discussion spans multiple South-East states.
These include Abia State, Anambra State, Ebonyi State, Enugu State, and Imo State.
Advocates say experiences differ from town to town.
They caution against broad generalizations about the entire region.
They also reject labeling all enforcers as representing their movement.
They argue that criminal acts should be separated from political protest.
Many emphasize that their position centers on dialogue and political solutions.
They call for engagement that addresses grievances peacefully.
They conclude that, from their perspective, the sit-at-home will persist symbolically until their leader’s situation changes.
They frame this stance as a matter of conviction rather than coercion.
The renewed exchange shows that the sit-at-home question remains politically sensitive.
It also highlights the gap between official narratives and some grassroots sentiments.
Observers say only sustained dialogue can narrow that divide.
