If I were President Muhammadu Buhari, I would carefully consider whether or not to release Nnamdi Kanu before leaving office. On one hand, releasing Kanu may be seen as a gesture of goodwill, and a way of improving relations between the Federal Government and Kanu’s supporters. On the other hand, it could be argued that releasing Kanu before the end of Buhari’s tenure could be perceived as a sign of weakness, and could set a precedent for other criminal or political prisoners.

Ultimately, the decision to release Nnamdi Kanu should be based on a careful assessment of the relevant risks and benefits to the Nigerian people. It is important to consider the implications of both releasing and not releasing Kanu on the nation’s security, stability, and social cohesion. Furthermore, whatever decision is made should be based on the rule of law, and must be supported by reliable evidence that Kanu has committed a crime. This evidence must be presented in a transparent and impartial manner.

If Buhari were to choose to release Kanu, he should consider the potential consequences including legal challenges and public backlash. He should also consider if there are ways to mitigate these risks, such as placing Kanu under judicial supervision or granting a conditional pardon. In any case, a decision to release Kanu should not be made rashly or without due consideration.

The decision of whether or not to release Nnamdi Kanu is a complex one, and the consequences of either choice could have far-reaching implications. Whatever decision is made, it is important that it is made in a way that is responsible and mindful of the nation’s best interests.