The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Biafra

  • Igbo leaders brainstorm Biafra agitations

    Igbo leaders brainstorm Biafra agitations

    For the second time since the pro-Biafra protests began, influential people from the region have met to dampen separatist passions without provoking the agitators. OKODILI NDIDI writes

    They all agreed that there was a security threat. So they cast aside all political or religious leanings and converged on Enugu to stamp out the threat and see how the region can address other challenges too. One area of concern is the poor federal road network. Another is the perceived neglect by the President Muhammadu Buhari administration.

    Among the attendees were politicians, traditional rulers, clergymen and other stakeholders.

    Members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) have staged protests through much of the Southeast including some states in the Southsouth. Apart from demanding the release from detention of their leader Nnamdi Kanu, they have also been asking for a separate nation. Authorities in the states where they protested laboured to keep them quiet while the army has warned of dire consequences should the agitations continue.

    Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha, who led the stakeholders, said it has become imperative to come together to address nagging issues in the zone, especially the renewed agitations by members of IPOB, a faction of the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) and other pro-Biafra groups.

    Going by the publicity and widespread attention that attended the Enugu meeting, it was obvious that the zone had missed focused and quality leadership, which has been blamed for the alleged marginalisation of the zone.

    Throughout the five states of the Southeast, there was apprehension as the meeting lasted. Many had expected open and harsh condemnation of the activities of the separatist groups, while others expected the leaders to back the call for seccession, especially with the growing feelings of marginalisation of the zone by the Buhari-led Federal Government.

    The elders meeting ended without infuriating the protesters or undermining the sovereignty of the nation. They were also silent on  the demand for the release of the detained Radio Biafra Director, Kanu.

    However, the issue of the deteriorating state of Federal Government roads in the zone was identified and given priority as some of the urgent issues that will be discussed with the Federal Government. The meeting also deliberated and agreed on the proposal to build an economic hub in the zone to be jointly funded by governments of the five states.

    Reading the five-paragraph communiqué, the Imo State Governor and the Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC) Governors’ Forum, said that the poor state of infrastructure in the Southeast and marginalisation in federal appointments and other socio-economic deficits have negatively impacted the economy of the region.

    Two committees were set up to mediate between the Federal Government and the pro-Biafra groups, while another was also set up to dialogue and mediate for the factional Ohanaeze Ndigbo group.

    According to Okorocha, a strong delegation of Southeast leaders have been mandated to meet and negotiate with the Federal Government over all the issues raised at the summit particularly as it affects the socio-economic wellbeing of the Southeast.

    The leaders commended the initiative of the Southeast Governors Forum to set up an economic council with a view to creating a viable economic and industrial hub in the region.

    But pro-Biafra groups earlier in a statement signed by the factional MASSOB Director of Information, Uchenna Madu, the group will sustain the renewed struggle until all the perceived injustices suffered by the Igbo are addressed, as well as the unconditional release of the detained Kanu.

    In a statement signed by Uchenna Madu, the factional MASSOB Director of Information, the separatist groups lamented that “Ndigbo in Nigeria have been on the receiving side of marginalization, unprovoked ethno-religious violence, subjugation, intimidation and outright neglect in sharing basic developmental amenities”.

    According to the statement, “the Federal Government has committed so much to rehabilitating victims of the Boko Haram insurgency but has conspicuously ignored Igbo returnees who form the bulk of the displaced persons from the North East Nigeria.

    “Another annoying issue is the  threat by Oba Rilwan Akiolu of Lagos State to the effect that Ndigbo would be drowned in the Lagos lagoon if they voted a candidate of their choice went, without a reprimand to the monarch because Ndigbo were involved. They believe we are expendable.”

    Dismissing the stand of some Igbo political leaders, Madu said, “We have lost confidence in all these self-styled leaders. Look at our infrastructures, nothing shows we are part of Nigeria. All the federal roads in the Southeast are death traps.”

    The groups regretted that “while the Boko Haram sect ravaging the Northeast is being offered amnesty and dialogue, MASSOB members who have remained non-violent since inception are being shot and murdered in cold blood.

    “As at today, more than 170 corpses of members of MASSOB shot by government agents are littered in mortuaries across the entire Southeast states. Many have been detained with the security agencies unable to account for their lives today due to the systemic extra-judicial killing of our members.”

    The Sunday meeting was the second in the series of meeting organized by the Igbo leaders to address the challenges confronting the zone since the outbreak of the pro-Biafra protests.

    Those in attendance at the last meeting were Imo state Governor, Rochas Okorocha, Ebonyi State Governor, Dave Umahi, Enugu State Governor, Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi, Deputy Governors of Anambra and Abia States.

    Others were Senator Ike Ekweremadu, the Minister of State for Education, Professor Anthony Anwuka, immediate past governor of Enugu State, Sullivan Chime, traditional rulers, among others.

     

  • Biafra’s shallow grave

    Agitations for the sovereign state of Biafra took a new dimension across the country with the arrest of Nnamdi Kanu, the director of Biafra Radio. Kanu was arrested in October, in connection with his pirate radio that has been championing the Biafra dream.

    At the last count, there have been demonstrations in many South-east and South-south states calling on the authorities to have him released. The agitators said they want to exit from the Nigerian state citing ill treatment, alienation and marginalization. For them, the attraction of Biafra lies in its envisaged capacity to offer them limitless opportunities to realize their potentials to the fullest.

    The development has raised concerns given that Nigeria fought a civil war for three years to quell similar agitations between 1967 and 1970. In that war, an estimated six million people lost their lives. Renewed agitations of the magnitude witnessed in the last couple of weeks are bound to raise serious discomfort especially among those privy to the circumstances of that war.

    Equally of concern is the fact that most of those protesting were born after that war and may not have known much about all the events of that historical episode. But this reality also raises its own puzzle given that the same issues that gave rise to that war are at the root of the current agitations. That the youths, 45 years after, are raising the same grievances that gave rise to the war is something that should give our leaders a food for thought. It is a serious development that calls for new approaches; new thinking and proactive measures rather than the stereotype of yesteryears. It should task our creative energies on what we did wrong within this timeframe with a view to remedying the situation. That is the path of great leaders and great nations.

    For Yakubu Gowon who prosecuted that war as military head of state, “with Biafra, it is finished”. He said it was to sooth frayed nerves and erase bitter feelings that his regime at the end of the war came out with the policy of “No victor, No vanquished”. There was also the reconciliation, reconstruction and rehabilitation slogan of the time aimed at integrating the defeated into the mainstream of the nation’s affairs. We shall return to this shortly.

    On its part, Arewa Consultative Forum ACF also declared that Biafra was settled in 1970. For this northern elite group, the issue of Biafra is as dead as dodo. Yet, some others have sought to find causal explanation for the rising agitations. Here, political motive is being alleged.

    Yes, Biafra may have been finished with in 1970. It may have also died at that time. Forty-five years thereon, it is doubtful whether the issue was very well finished with. It is also not certain whether it was properly buried through the satisfaction of all the rites of passage to enable it rest in perfect peace.

    It is either Biafra did not die properly because its undertakers refused to obey the rules for its final interment or it was buried in a very shallow grave. For any of these possibilities, what we are witnessing today is the rising ghost of a Biafra that was not allowed to rest in peace due to actions or inactions of those who presided over its final funeral rites.

    That was the contradiction thrown up by Gowon when he said with Biafra, it is finished. Those protesting are saying contrary to the promises of no victor and no vanquished, those who fought on the side of Biafra have remained the vanquished. They are saying that the Nigerian state instead of providing equal opportunities for them to realize their full potentials, treats them as second class citizens. They are not alone in this.

    They are increasingly coming to terms with the fallacies of the reconciliation, reconstruction and rehabilitation mantra of the post civil war era. They can see these in the state of infrastructure in their zone; it is palpable from the selective attacks on their lives and property on the guise of religion, it is no less evident in the appointments made since Buhari took over. Of about 39 initial key appointments by Buhari, no south-easterner was deemed fit for any. Yet, people came out to justify them on the spurious and feeble ground that he needed to appoint those he can work with. There is something inherently untidy that a vibrant segment of this population could neither qualify nor trusted to occupy any of such positions.

    Some even rationalized the appointments on the inverted logic that the Igbo had a disproportionate share of such offices during the Jonathan regime and therefore should not complain. But those who canvass this jaundiced and self-serving viewpoint fail to adduce evidence of any geo-political zone that was so excluded during that period. That is not to say that the failure to carry that zone along in those appointments is the mono causal explanation for the agitations.

    The activities MASSOB have been there since our return to democracy. A couple of years back, MASSOB called for a sit-at-home protest to press home its demands. The outcome shocked many as the order was obeyed not only in the south-east but beyond.

    Agitations for restructuring which are seen as the only path to the nation’s stability and development have been a recurring decimal. So also are separatist tendencies among groups in the federation. What is now required are new approaches to those dysfunctions that induce competition for the loyalty of the citizens between the government and the primordial units. Not long ago, two former heads of state Olusegun Obasanjo and Ibrahim Babangida issued a joint press statement lamenting that even known patriots are now beginning to question the basis of Nigerian unity.

    But for one or two zones, there is a wide gamut of consensus that restructuring holds the ace to the numerous problems of this country. Despite its allure, some people have sworn not to allow it see the light of the day for some inexplicable reasons. The 2014 National Conference which had copious recommendations on how to build a nation unfettered by sectional prejudices has been trapped in the vortex of high wire politics.

    Situations as this cannot but give rise to frustrations within and among sections whose future are deliberately stunted on account of their membership of the Nigerian state. These are the subsisting realities. Yes, the Igbo may be better with a wider political and geographical space to play with. They may be better playing in the big league which Nigeria provides. But this can only stand when the state provides equal opportunities for all. The Igbo have made enormous sacrifice for this country. They have demonstrated this with their huge investments in parts of the country which will suffer serious reverses if they are confined to the boundaries of their ethnic group.

    They are not unaware but for the informal sector, they may have remained hewers of wood and drawers of water in a land supposedly flowing with milk and honey. They are not oblivious of the mounting constraints and organized conspiracy they face in ascending the commanding heights of the military, bureaucracy and the highest political office in the land-the presidency.

    The rise in Biafra agitations may be a desperate move out of a desperate situation. Those who protest wear the shoes and should know where it pinches most. But the Nigerian state will neither let go nor do the needful to allay their fears and guarantee their future.

    The impression that our leaders attach higher premium to continuously holding this country together through coercive state apparatus than building a consensual order that will imbue patriotism and selfless services in all, is a patently misplaced one. That is the missing link. And in it can be located the reasons for the rising spate of systemic schism.

  • Biafra’s rising stridency

    Biafra’s rising stridency

    From its beginnings in 1999 when the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) embodied its goals, and now when the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has given it added vibrancy and renewal, the Biafra concept has refused to be a passing fancy. It is unlikely to go away anytime soon. Both MASSOB and IPOB, sometimes now used interchangeably because their goals converge, are a recrudescence of an idea that took root in 1966, was romanticised in the sanguinary accounts of epic battles between 1967 and 1970 during the civil war, and continues to achieve striking relevance because of the dire failings of an unstructured and distorted federation. Since 2005 when Ralph Uwazuruike gave MASSOB some ideological and administrative oomph, and since early this year when Nnamdi Kanu’s Voice of Biafra Radio gave IPOB resonance and poignancy, the Biafra idea has steadily grown in scope and appeal in the hearts of southeasterners. Nigerians and their leaders, including many sceptical Southeast opponents of the idea, are mistaken to think the idea will suddenly dissipate because it is denounced or repressed by force.

    Speaking at the launching of the 2016 Armed Forces Remembrance Emblem at the Presidential Villa last Monday, President Muhammadu Buhari, who has not really addressed the ferment in the Southeast, observed that: “Our nation has recently celebrated 55 years of political independence and continues to remain as one indivisible entity despite several grievous challenges. Since independence, Nigeria has witnessed a lot of internal strife, survived a civil war and has remained united. This feat achieved by the country is an eloquent testimony to the determination of our citizens to remain as one people.” This is perhaps his first real attempt to speak to the problem that is gradually assuming a disturbing dimension. Many southeasterners themselves are ambivalent over the Biafra idea. Biafra died with Emeka Ojukwu, argue some. Yet others suggest that the economic imperatives of Nigeria and the so-called Biafra, not to say the peculiar map and demographics of the country, make the idea unattractive.

    Governors of the Southeast have been more hesitant taking a position. As elected leaders of the region, they bear the brunt of the disruptions and agitations for Biafra. Their first major attempt to address the matter was inconclusive. They will be reconvening to examine the matter more carefully, perhaps with more tact, and will doubtless take a stand sooner or later. The region’s cultural leaders have also been full of vacillation. They are sensitive about the yearnings and aspirations of Biafra’s advocates and their own relevance as traditional and social leaders of the region. They will see which way the cats are jumping before they take a more definitive position. Ohaneze Ndigbo has denounced the Biafra idea as impracticable and useless, hinging its position inelegantly on a troubling materialistic view of Igbo destiny. But it acknowledges that Southeast grievances are real and legitimate. Sundry media commentators have also equally been less squeamish in taking a position. From the safety of their media establishments and columns, some have denounced Biafra as anachronistic, and others have suggested that the federal government must engage Biafra advocates to resolve the contentious issues and controversies predisposing the region to centrifugal tendencies.

    Security and law enforcement agencies have on their own been very predictable. The police see the matter strictly as one of law and order, leading to the shooting or detention of some Biafra advocates during marches. The Department of State Service (DSS) has similarly been stereotypical in its approach. The army inexplicably speaks thunder, almost as if its officers forget the beginnings and the trajectories of the Boko Haram insurgency in the Northeast and how difficult it has been to combat the menace. Army commanders, who still can’t get military rule out of their veins, have spoken of their readiness to crush the separatist tendencies of Biafra’s advocates once the order is given. Do they know the implication of what they are saying? Have they done their study to find out whether once military muscle is applied, the problem would invariably yield to superior force? Have they studied contemporary military campaigns such as the United States’ Iraq War, the Syrian War, Afghanistan War, and many others which offers ample examples to militaries to look beyond the punch they pack?

    The restiveness in the Southeast is real and growing. There is nothing puzzling about it. But so far, neither the government nor the security agencies have shown any modicum of understanding of the Biafra phenomenon and what it presages. Worse, given the way they speak and the approach they have taken, it is unlikely they will view the problem with the wisdom and surefootedness needed to tackle it. Since the presidency of Olusegun Obasanjo, right through those of Umaru Yar’Adua and Goodluck Jonathan, the Biafra crisis has steadily grown in scope and worsened in temper. It would not matter whether the federal government seems favourable to the Southeast, the Biafra idea will grow in stridency. And if not Biafra, then other groups, whether Boko Haram or a hypothetical Yoruba Liberation Group. The reason is clear. Youths are unemployed and drifting, and a vast majority of Nigerians are frustrated and alienated.

    Nor would it matter just how much force is applied to check the crisis. The logic and the environmental elements that feed it are expanding; and as long as the crisis remains unattended to, it will grow more menacing. It is surprising that the dithering and foolishness that enabled Boko Haram to fester are being replicated in the Southeast. Many years back, the federal government was either ignorant of the forces that birthed and fed Boko Haram or it was simply careless. Now they are displaying even worse ignorance and carelessness. Somehow, Nigerian leaders and many others, including some southeasterners, seem to believe that Biafra is nothing but a romantic and nostalgic idea. They don’t think it is a manifestation of deeper fissures in the country’s political tectonic. They think a decisive application of force, using what the army elegantly calls its rules of engagement, would be effective. Said the General Officer Commanding 81 Division, Major General Isido Edet: “It is in the public domain that certain elements are agitating for secession, though they have been counselled by elder statesmen that such exercise is not for the good of Nigerians  because we have gone through that lane before…The Nigerian Army would like to send an unequivocal warning to all and sundry, more specifically, to all those threatening and agitating for the dismemberment of the country, those committing treasonable felony and arson as well as wanton destruction of lives and property that once the army is deployed, we shall apply ROE to the letter.” The officers seem to forget that this is the age of asymmetrical war, wars without borders, wars most armies are unprepared and poorly equipped to fight, wars in which territories reclaimed by regular armies cannot be held in the face of radicalised and suicidal militants. Had the Nigerian civil war been fought today, the outcome would probably have been different.

    President Buhari should get serious about tackling the Biafra matter. And the army should keep quiet, await orders, refrain from offering unsolicited public opinion on critical issues, and avoid fouling the polity with superfluous display of valour. Whether the government likes it or not, Biafra and other separatist ideas will not fizzle out until they are scrupulously and comprehensively addressed. Governor Rochas Okorocha of Imo State gave probably the best indication of what needs to be done to tackle the problem. At a lecture in Abuja last week, the governor suggested: “There is a major issue that we must address urgently in Nigeria, and that is the issue of unity of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Today, I must say that the only force holding Nigeria is God because all the qualities and qualifications of nations that have broken, all of them are here, and all the characteristics of a broken nation are in Nigeria.” Two observations flow from the governor’s point of view.

    One, Biafra and similar separatist tendencies flow from a lack of national identity. No government since independence has been able to unite Nigerians around a set of national values, principles and ambitions to give the country a sense of being and purpose. The constant romance with the so-called national orientation movement and ethical revolution mantra have proved wasteful, useless, sentimental and irrelevant. Right from its founding constitution as authored by a set of brilliant and philosophical leaders, the United States had envisioned a great and powerful nation, one that would assume regional and global leadership based on the universality and applicability of the principles and values it espouses. Since no leader can give what he doesn’t have, it is a ringing indictment that the absence of national guiding ethic and ambition reflects the intellectual and philosophical poverty of Nigerian leaders. The undisputable fact is that no Nigerian leader, from Balewa to the present, has ennobled the office they so grandly and garishly occupied. In consequence, the Igbo gravitate strongly around the powerful cultural values of their founding and metamorphosis; and the Yoruba, Hausa/Fulani and other ethnic groups yield supinely to their own worldviews and historical antecedents. Until Nigerian leaders can distill from their country’s national history a lofty and unifying perspective, and then imbue it with a great and robust essence and ambition, the country will continue to gravitate towards its centrifugal core. How the Nigerian Army, despite their study of great military empire builders such as Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander the Great and Suleyman the Magnificent can imagine that the application of force will replace a vacuous and brittle core is hard to fathom. Can force replace the philosophical and existential magnet around which a country should successfully and enduringly coalesce?

    Two, as Gov Okorocha suggested, and as many other patriots have argued, Nigeria was founded on a poor, untenable and conflictive foundation. That foundation needs to be broken down and rebuilt. Biafra agitators are merely reminding the nation of the responsibility it has shirked for a long time. If that responsibility is not embraced now, the consequences will indeed be grave and unmanageable. Past leaders have played ducks and drakes with the national emotions. Whether it was the hedonistic Sani Abacha, or the sanctimonious Olusegun Obasanjo, or the experimentalist Ibrahim Babangida, or the opportunistic Goodluck Jonathan, none of these former leaders had altruistically attempted to restructure the country on the nationalistic foundations that conduce to a successful, united, modern, stable and prosperous nation-state.

    President Buhari will have to face the responsibility of political restructuring squarely if he is not to lose the initiative and the little momentum triggered by his ascendancy. The problem of the country is not primarily corruption which needs integrity and honesty to resolve. The problem, contrary to the president’s obsession, is largely the constitutional enthronement of an unworkable and highly flawed federation. With many national conferences already held over the decades, it may be time to take a look again to synthesize the various reports. This is necessary in order to find a workable and inspiring mean strong and sensible enough to be placed before a constituent assembly and perhaps for a referendum. Above all, this vital revolutionary change must be anchored on the president’s own political vision. For if he does not have a deep appreciation and conviction of the problem, and does not believe in his panaceas and vision for Nigeria, how can he drive the process wholeheartedly? The problem, it must be reiterated, is not whether the Igbo can survive as an independent and landlocked nation with a restrictive geographical space, as some have rightly drawn attention to. The dominant issue is that without a consensual political and economic federalism that can endure far into the future, Nigeria’s ethnic groups will continue to view irredentism as a practicable and beguiling prospect.

    Indeed, the great question is whether President Buhari, whose perspectives on economic and political issues need depth, tremendous broadening and harmonisation, can take the bold and revolutionary step to redraw Nigeria’s internal boundaries, fine-tune its demographics into coherent and harmonious parts, and rework its internal dynamics essentially along linguistic lines. The task is huge, and the risk manifold. If he fails, or if by commission or omission he embraces military application of force, the consequences may be far graver and more complicated than he imagines. The time is short, and the leeway to take bold steps is getting constricted. Now is the time for President Buhari to forswear his instinctive conservatism and hesitations and bravely and intelligently break the mould. After all, Nigeria’s present boundaries were drawn a little over a century ago. There is nothing that says certain forces cannot be unleashed to redraw it sooner or later in ways no one has contemplated.

  • Legal aspect of Mr Nnamdi Kanu’s Biafra (2)

    Within the backdrop of establishing the internal and external aspect of self-determination follows the issue of territorial integrity. The main bone of contention for any group or peoples within a defined national boundary that wish to declare their right to self-determination is the fact that international law has developed within a framework of respect for the territorial integrity of a state. Cohabiting with the United Nations’ encouragement of self-determination is its very strict practice of respect for the territorial integrity of a State, a policy deeply against partial or total interference with the territorial integrity of a State. Territorial integrity and respect therefore is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, Art 2. The General Assembly, in Declaration 1514 on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in 1960 even went as far as purporting to exclude the exercise of self-determination by discernible groups: ‘Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purpose and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.’

    In a leading Canadian case with similar facts to the declaration that Mr. Watermelon-Head may well rely on, the court was very clear on the position of United Nations Charter in regard to the right to self-determination of indigenous people within a defined state. On the question of whether international law principles recognize Quebecers right to self-determination which could legally effect the unilateral secession of Quebec from Canada, the court concluded that; ‘Canada is a sovereign and independent State conducting itself in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, thus the Quebecers had no right to secede’. In the judgement, the Supreme Court had recognized the right of a people to self-determination and acknowledged that much of the Quebec population satisfied the criteria for determining the definition of a ‘people.’ However, the court then distinguished between internal and external self-determination; the former being the accepted political development of a State and the latter could only be invoked unilaterally in extreme situations. The Quebecers were accorded internal self-determination insofar as their linguistic rights are recognised; they have a fair representation in national legislative, executive and judicial bodies and their culture is not threatened. The court received many submissions on behalf of other indigenous Canadians who also argued for their own territory and autonomy. But this point was not even addressed by the court because no application of the principle of self-determination was found as justified vis-à-vis Quebec and therefore no other indigenous group or tribe could invoke that right.

    But even with these set principles, there are instances where international law applies a different criterion in cases it considers extreme. The scope of an extreme situation justifying external self-determination was addressed in the opinion of the African Commission of Human Rights in Katangese Peoples’ Congress V Zaire. It was suggested that where a State denies a group participation in the Government process and violates their fundamental rights, the territorial integrity of the State may not be such a paramount consideration.

    Furthermore, other instances where support for the extension of the principle of Self-determination to indigenous populations may be inferred have been recorded. One such example was from the powerful separate opinion laid down in the Western Sahara Case. The judge opined that; “It hardly seems necessary to make more explicit the cardinal restraints which the legal right of self-determination imposes… It is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not for the territory to determine the destiny of the people.” But even such a strong ‘obiter’ is not without ambiguity. It could be inferred from this that the ‘people’ must be of a whole territory and hence the judgement conforms to the territorial view of the United Nations. On the other hand, the use of the term territory could be taken to mean that the land could be part of an existing State. This still causes some problems for self-determination with the colonial framework where questions of succession arise.

    While unilateral secession is not specifically prohibited, it is clear that international law does not specifically grant component parts of sovereign states the legal right to secede unilaterally from their parent state. Self-determination is clearly acceptable for divesting States of colonial powers but the problems arise when groups not in solo occupation of a given defined State territory choose to exercise self-determination.

    Although the policy of self-determination has had some notable successes in the post-colonialist era; for example in Czechoslovakia where the population voted to separate and become two States, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, international law tends to lean towards territorial integrity in a clash with claims for ethnic, cultural and religious self-determination.

    As earlier stated, the right to self-determination as a group right applies to the people of a State wholly and not severally. The people that Mr. Watermelon-Head is referring to as Biafrans are the nationals of Nigeria as a whole. And even though Nigeria is a decolonized State that lacks cultural and ethnic homogeneity, the whole people of the territory achieved independence through the communal exercise of self-determination.

    So, based on the set precedence of the International legal provision that Mr. Watermelon-Head probably would need to seek to rely on, would such a quest for political autonomy of Biafra from Nigeria succeed under the United Nations Charter? Given the fact that it would be difficult to argue that Biafra meets the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people or that they have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development, any quest he may have for self-determination under the United Nations Charter would be unlikely to succeed. International law would expect any such agitation for self-determination to be sought within the framework of Nigeria.

    Now, let me briefly turn to Nigerian law. Based on Nigerian internal law, Mr. Watermelon-Head’s quest is also unlikely to succeed. Provided in the preamble to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria ,1999 (as Amended), the entire people of Nigeria agreed that the Country should be One Indivisible and Indissoluble Sovereign Nation. It proscribes that ;

    “We the People of the Federal Republic of Nigeria: Having firmly and solemnly resolved: TO LIVE in unity and harmony as one indivisible, indissoluble, Sovereign Nation under God dedicated to the promotion of inter-African solidarity, world peace, international co-operation and understanding: AND TO PROVIDE for a Constitution for the purpose of promoting the good government and welfare of all persons in our country on the principles of Freedom, Equity and Justice, and for the purpose of consolidating the Unity of our people: DO HEREBY MAKE, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THE following constitution…”

    The foregoing is a collective agreement by the Nigerian People and for this principle of indivisibility and indissolubility to be undermined by any part of Nigeria it will require the people of Nigeria coming together to agree that a part of the nation has a right to what that part considers as self determination. The Constitution is the Organic Law, governing the rights, duties, obligations, and privileges of the people of Nigeria and its supremacy must at all times be fundamentally observed. For any group of persons to seek to divide the Nation under any guise would amount to a brazen attack on the Constitution.

    Mr. Watermelon-Head has got the law, both international and internal, twisted! The second limb of the preamble to the Constitution makes provision aimed at engendering peaceful coexistence and unity of Nigeria. Perhaps, Mr. Watermelon-Head should be advised to concentrate his efforts on engaging the leadership of Nigeria for… better leadership rather than go on this ‘Frolic of his own!” It is likely that the grievances Mr. Watermelon-Head has is hinged on the failure of past political leaders to promote good governance and welfare of all persons on the principles of Freedom, Equality, and Justice that has heightened his agitation for the Biafran State, which threatens the peace of the Nation.

    In a nation like Ethiopia it was possible for Eritrea to exercise her right to self determination because the Ethiopian law has liberal provision that guarantees such right unlike Nigeria where the Constitution does not admit of the exercise of a right to self determination.

    Therefore, if Mr. Watermelon-Head wants to declare political autonomy from Nigeria in order to enforce the United Nations’ Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples for the self determination of Biafra, he must keep in mind that in challenging the traditional anti-secessionist United Nations’ stand, the present United Nations’ practice dictates that only classic colonies, those Third-World nations under European domination can exercise the right to self-determination. In light of this, rather than relying on international law and the UN Convention or internal law to enforce his quest for self-determination, an internal decision making framework, such as a Constitutional Convention, National Conference or Constituent Assembly may be a more informed, advisable and sensible way for Mr. Watermelon-Head to present his argument for breaking away from Nigeria.

    Next time, I will dissect another aspect of the issues that have been thrown up by the undertaking that Mr. Watermelon-Head also known as Mr Nnamdi Kanu has so audaciously committed himself to in his search for Biafra.

    I invite you to Follow me on Twitter- @hanneymusawa.

     

     

  • Ohaneze to Biafra agitators: Stop this madness

    Ohaneze to Biafra agitators: Stop this madness

    The apex lgbo socio- cultural organisation, Ohaneze Ndigbo, has warned the south East, south south youths to stop the secession agitation, saying that it will never work.

    Rather, the body called on the youths to give support to the administration of President Mohammadu Buhari for him to have a look at the dilapidated roads in the zone.

    Briefing reporters Friday in Awka, the chairman forum of state presidents of Ohaneze in the seven Igbo speaking states, Elder Chris Eluemunoh, said the group would never support agitation of Biafra as being demanded by the youth.

    The seven states of Ohaneze included Anambra, Abia, Ebonyi, Enugu,Imo, Delta and Rivers.

    Before now, the youths in the zone had held cities like Aba, Awka, Onitsha, Owerri, Enugu, Abakiliki, Asaba and Portharcourt hostage in the past weeks calling for the release of Nnamdi Kanu, Benjamin Onwuka and others by the federal government.

    The youths were doing the demonstrations under the aegis of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) with few other members of the Movement for the Actualization of Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) involved.

    However, the Ohaneze chairman Friday said that what the youths were doing could be described as pure madness, adding that it would have been a different ball game if they were protesting against the bad state of roads instead of agitation for Biafra.

    According to Eluemunoh, “Ohaneze as Igbo cultural group cannot support insurgency, we are totally against it and we will never support it.

    “Anybody that has any issue with the federal government should go for dialogue with the president and that is why we went for national conference, Nigeria is a one united country and we do not want any other.

    “I believe what the youths are doing is to call the attention of the president to see the infrastructural decay in the zone, this region has been abandoned and neglected and not by Buhari, but by previous administrations started by Olusegun Obasanjo which Goodluck Jonathan also tried to bring back.

    “Ohaneze is calling on the federal government to declare state of emergency in the zone on roads for purposes of infrastructural development and that is what the youths are saying, we believe and not secession.

    “Our president should forget what happened in the last election and Ohaneze is going to give him full support through prayers and other means and in making sure that Nigeria stays as one indivisible entity.

    “Therefore, the youths should stop such agitations for Biafra because Biafra died in 1970 and we are saying it again that Ohaneze will never support it,” Eluemunoh warned.

    However, the group said if Nnamdi Kanu and others who were spearheading such agitation had committed any offence, they should face the law, but if not, they should be freed.

    Furthermore, he debunked the allegation that the youths were being supported by top Igbo politicians, adding that if indeed they were getting any support from anywhere, it should be from outside Nigeria.

    He said they believed that such restiveness by the youths could stop if roads like Oba-Okigwe road, Owerri – Portharcourt road which Ohaneze described as the worst in Nigeria were fixed.

    “What they call agitation for Biafra is not in the dictionary of Ohaneze  Ndigbo and we will never give it a look in, what Ohaneze is saying is that president Buhari’s administration should be supported to move this country forward,” said Eluemunoh.

     

  • Biafra, who hath bewitched thee?

    Biafra, who hath bewitched thee?

    SIR: I plead that the so-called Biafrans count the cost of secession which I consider as far more expensive than the cost of integration or re-integration as the case may be. Let them count the cost of war for it is far more expensive than the cost of peace

    My people should not forget so soon, how the jaws of starvation pierced into their marrow, it became a case of survival of the fittest between mother and child.

    One thing I am very sure of is that we are not ready for self-governance; disunity and selfishness will not permit that, or how does a nation stand when every individual wants to be governor of the governed?

    Besides, do not be deceived; know who your kinsmen are: the South-south that comprises of Akwa-Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross-Rivers, Delta, Edo and Rivers states are not joining the Biafran band-wagon. If you hope to rely on their crude oil as a pillow, be warned, there is no fool in Fulham.

    The Igbo nation due to her industrious nature are known to be widely dispersed, so be it known that you endanger the lives of your kinsmen in Diaspora. Do not be deceived, Nnamdi Kanu who you call your hero and who is igniting discord among you is a citizen of the United Kingdom and his family is well tucked in the bosom of a well-developed country. When the going gets tough, your warlord and hero will abandon the cause and fly to safety, but you the misguided ones will be left to bury your dead and reap the negative spoils of war.

    Dim Odumegwu Ojukwu, whom you respect and worship, must be wincing in his grave. He fought a good fight, but alas he wailed “I proudly led the first Biafra war, I don’t think the second one is necessary. We should have learnt from the first one or else the deaths would have been to no avail”. He went ahead and contested the presidency of Nigeria, died a Nigerian and buried with full Nigerian state honour and not a pro-Biafra activist. Even his wife served as Nigeria’s ambassador to Ghana and Spain respectively.

    So whose cause are you fighting? Is it that of a man who does not have the support of his political and traditional leaders in any form or context in the entire Igbo nation, in fact not a single worthy Igbo man has come out to show solidarity?

    Here are a few posers: If the Biafra struggle becomes a reality (which I doubt), where would the capital be? Which state would produce the first president? What verifiable resources would sustain the new country? In a section of the  country where individualism hold sway, conceding positions and benefits to others (including fellow Igbos) is not a character we are known for; “every man for himself, God for all of us” so the mantra goes.

    My fellow kinsmen, do not be deceived, you have lost the battle even before it started, so stop chanting incantations of war.

     

    • Chinemere A. Chukwu.

    chukwuchinemere@gmail.cm

     

  • S’East governors to resolve Pro-Biafra protests

    S’East governors to resolve Pro-Biafra protests

    South East governors Tuesday rose from a meeting in Enugu with a tacit decision to resolve the issue of the pro-Biafran protests by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB).

    They have also advised MASSOB/IPOB to tow the line of peace as it is the only way to ensure economic development of the zone.

    The governors said they resolved to consult widely with “Ohanaeze, traditional rulers, development unions, clergy and other stakeholders on how to ensure lasting peace in the zone.”

    In a communiqué which was read by Governor Rochas Okorocha of Imo state, the governors assured: “In furtherance to this, the South East governors scheduled an emergency meeting of stakeholders on Sunday 22nd November, 2015 in Enugu.”

    Attendance at the emergency meeting includes; all National Assembly members, all ministers and other invited guests from the zone.

    They expressed concern about the poor state of the Federal Government roads in the zone namely Enugu-Onitsha Road, Aba-Ikot Ekpene Road, Owerri-Port Harcourt Road, Enugu-Port Harcourt Road and others which needed urgent intervention by the Federal Government.

    The governors also resolved to appoint a high level Economic Advisory Committee to harness the economic potentials of the people of the zone working together.

    In attendance were Governor Ifeany Ugwuanyi of Enugu state, Okezie Ikpeazu of Abia state, Rochas Okorocha of Imo state and the deputy governor of Anambra state, Nkem Okeke.

    Ebonyi state governor Dave Umahi was absent.

  • Biafra: Cross River issues stern warning against protests

    Biafra: Cross River issues stern warning against protests

    Following protests seeking for secession to form the Republic of Biafra in some South East and South South states, the Cross River State government has issued a stern warning against such in its domain.

    The government said its attention has been drawn to planned protest march by some elements outside the state and urged the people of the state, especially the youths not to allow themselves to be used to achieve any self-serving interest.

    The State Security Adviser, Mr Jude Ngaji, said in a statement in Calabar Tuesday said that security agencies are on red alert to ensure that no unauthorized march, procession or protest takes place in the state.

    “The state government attaches great importance to the unity of the country and warned that any person or group of persons who embark on any protest without a written permission from the police shall be made to face the full force of the law,” the statement read.

  • Biafra: Fed Govt urged to promote social cohesion

    Biafra: Fed Govt urged to promote social cohesion

    A Nigerian group in the United Kingdom (U.K), the Igbo Forum London (IFL), has urged the Federal Government to adopt policies that will promote social cohesion in the country.

    In a statement by its Vice Chairman, Evans Olekanma, and Secretary, Andy Onyedikachi, the group also urged President Muhammadu Buhari to respect the stipulations of Federal Character principles, as enshrined in the Constitution to avoid suppressing the freedom of speech among Nigerians.

    IFL was reacting to the agitation for the creation of a Republic of Biafra.

    The group noted that the adoption of policies that “inspire social cohesion” would ensure that growth trickles down to the less-privileged members of the society.

    “This will curtail the perception of marginalisation” against Nigerians, it said.

    Relying on Article 10 of the Universal Convention on Human Rights; Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right and Section 39 of the Nigerian Constitution, IFL said: “Suppression of different opinions or expression is tyrannical and we, the Igbo Forum in the Diaspora, support enlightened and civilised debate on whether or not we are worse off together or better off apart.”

    The group appealed to the government to check the excesses of security agents in dealing with foreign currency black market dealers.

    It said: “We accept Federal Government’s economic policies. However, confiscation of foreign currencies by black market dealers or traders should be above board.”

    The forum, which comprises Nigerians in the UK, said it was “gravely concerned about the arbitrary conducts of the Nigerian government in the exercise of its inherent powers through its security forces and or apparatus”.

    IFL added: “We refer, for example, to the imbalance in President Buhari’s recent Federal Government appointments, which do not reflect the ‘Federal Character’ enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution in Section 14(3).

    “We submit that Section 14(3) of the Nigerian Constitution is mandatory and does not give the President, whether currently or in future, the discretion to depart from such mandate.”

    The group averred that government’s recent fiscal and monetary policies “tend to undermine a segment of Nigerians”.

    It also urged the government to release detained promoter of Radio Biafra, Mr Nnamdi Kanu, adding that he was merely exercising his “right to freedom of speech”.

    IFL said: “We call on the Federal Republic of Nigeria to release Mr. Nnamdi Kanu and others, who were unlawfully arrest and detained without regard to the rule of law.

    “We are aware that detaining an alleged accused beyond the custody time limit without charge or under suspicious extension of time limit by the Magistrate’s Court, again with charge or charges, is a travesty and mockery of our criminal justice system.”

    It urged the government to “either charge those in detention for trumped-up allegations or release them as a matter of urgency”.

    IFL said: “We submit, in the alternative, that the Federal Government should disclose the reason or reasons for remanding our brothers in custody without charge.”

     

  • BIAFRA: The facts, fiction and driving forces

    BIAFRA: The facts, fiction and driving forces

    The pro-Biafra demonstrations that have swept through certain South East and South South states in recent caught many by surprise. Driven largely by elements of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) group, the agitation has eclipsed anything that its precursors like the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra ever achieved by way of media attention. Assistant Editor, Dare Odufowokan, in this piece reviews the true strength of the Biafra agitation as well as its main drivers.

    President Muhammadu Buhari got elected on an election plank with a promise that if he got elected, he will immediately set about ending the Boko Haram insurgency in the northeastern part of the country. He defined the crisis in that part of the country as unnecessary while vowing that under him, never again will any part of the country be allowed to slip out of the control of the federal government.

    After his election, he announced plans for ridding the northeast of insurgents and gave clear instructions to security commands as to what should be done immediately to ensure an end to the maiming and killings in states like Bornu, Yobe, Adamawa, Gombe, Bauchi, Taraba,amongst others.

    The crisis weary people of the zone applauded him and bought into his anti-insurgency policies. Civilian volunteers formed themselves into cells and went about helping the military to clear the villages of dissidents. Liberation armies moving into the communities were received with love and smiles while insurgents, unlike before, had their movements and locations revealed to security operatives by the locals. With all these happening, hope of an end to the bloodletting in the northeast heightened.

    But while the President and his military tacticians continue to find more ways of achieving the set goal of ending the insurgence by December, the glimmer of hope currently on the horizon appears threatened following disturbing news and reports of fast spreading and sometimes violent agitations in the southeast and south south zones of the country by people demanding for the actualization of what they call the Sovereign State of Biafra.

    According to reports from Onitsha, Nsukka, Owerri, Aba, Enugu, Asaba and other towns in the zones, young men and women are daily flocking to join the protesters, who have embarked on peaceful protest rallies across cities in Igboland and the Niger Delta, the areas they described as part and parcel of the proposed Biafra Republic. To make matters more worrisome, the agitators are daily winning over sympathizers towards their cause.

    The crisis heightened as members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) during the week, shut down markets in Aba, Abia State, in continuation of its three-day one million protest march calling for the release of their detained leader and Director, Radio Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu. The protesters in several groups, with each numbering no fewer than 5,000, marched through Azikiwe, Cemetery, Asa, Faulks, Aba-Owerri and Osisioma Ngwa from where they forcefully closed all the markets in the city.

    Shop owners who had already opened for business were seen hurriedly closing their shops. The two groups later converged at the ever busy Azikiwe/ Asa road junction causing a heavy gridlock as they marched through Faulks to the Ariaria International Market where they had Saturday warned traders not to open for business.

    Similarly, Movement for the Actualization of Sovereign State of Biafra, MASSOB, said it had mobilized over 2,000-members for a peaceful protest in Ebonyi State. In a statement, the factional leader of the group, Uchenna Madu, said in Abakaliki that the body was protesting indiscriminate arrests and detention of its members by the federal government.

    “We are unstoppable in this nationwide protest. No amount of intimidation, harassment, arrest and detention will prevent us from showing our grievances over the action of the Federal Government and the police. They have been arresting us and we want to let them know that there is limit we can endure all their actions. We have been very peaceful but the federal government and security agents are pushing us to the wall”, he said.exercise to checkmate influx of hoodlums, arms and ammunition into the state.”

     Concerns

    The presidency, few days back, while admitting that the development in the southern part of the country is a serious problem after all, said the President has directed Governors of the states in the region to immediately halt the agitations in the interest of peace in the country. The Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity, Mr Femi Adesina, stated this recently while fielding questions from journalists.

    According to Adesina, the President is worried that the agitations in the south will distract the his administration and affect its delivery on promises made to Nigerians. He however promised that all necessary things would be done to ensure that it does not escalate beyond mere agitations

    Elder statesman, Dr. Tunji Braithwaite, recently lent his voice to the matter when he urged President Buhari not to joke with the ongoing secession threat. According to him, it will be at the country’s peril to take it lightly.

    “President Muhammadu Buhari should not take the issue of the agitation for the sovereign state of Biafra lightly. It will be at the country’s peril to take it lightly. Politically, when there is no justice, we cannot get peace. It’s now a matter of social justice. Social injustice, as the Igbo activists have alleged, is fuelling the agitation for secession,” Braithwaite said.

    It was a worried Imo State Governor and Chairman of Progressives Governors’ Forum, Chief Rochas Okorocha, who announced that he is currently arranging a crucial meeting with other governors in the South-East, over the growing agitation by protagonists of Biafra.

    Governor Okorocha in  a statement through his Chief Press Secretary, CPS, Mr. Sam Onwuemeodo, said the leadership of Ohaneze Ndi Igbo, and other stakeholders in the geo-political zone, were also being invited to talk and agree on how to check the activities of pro-Biafra groups in the area.

    “The meeting is expected to take place this weekend in Owerri, the Imo State capital.   Already the Governor has begun to make all the necessary contacts to ensure that all those expected to be at the meeting, would be in attendance”, Onwuemeodo said.

    It will be recalled that  Okorocha had earlier, while taking exception to the pro-Biafra violent protests in some of the South-East states and few other neighbouring states, disassociated the governors and leaders in the South-East states from the MASSOB protest, describing the whole exercise as “embarrassing, disturbing, counter-productive and to a large extent, distracting”.

    According to Governor Okorocha, the pro-Biafra protests could not be in the interest of the south-east people but were only sending wrong signals to the rest of Nigerians. “It has become increasingly necessary for the governors in the zone, Ohaneze leaders and other stakeholders in the area to meet, to call a spade, a spade”, Okorocha said.

    The Governor  also said that “at the end of the Owerri meeting, the governors and other leaders will take a common position and will also invite the leaders of the pro-Biafra groups for a meeting, to let them know the socio-economic and political implications of their activities, including their demand for sovereignty in a united Nigeria”.

    Okorocha insisted that  the governors and leaders in the zone could no longer sit and watch the whole situation degenerate, even as he also noted that the Igbos as a people cannot afford to have its own kind of Boko Haram. He wondered why the pro-Biafra apologists kept quiet all these years only to resume their protests and activities this time and few months after the new administration in the country came on board.

    Even the #BringBackOurGirls (BBOG) group has observed with great concern the uprising in the South East on the Biafra issue and called on the federal and the state governments in the South East to explore ways of addressing the grievances of the people.

    Speaking during the daily sit-out of the group, one of its members, Chris Okenwa called on the federal government to handle the rising issue of Biafra before it will escalate to higher problems.

    “The government should look at this issue. We cannot afford to have another insurgency in our hands. We need the government to handle the uprising and dialogue with the parties involve. We are fighting for the soul of Nigeria. We should also speak on this issue,” he said.

    Also speaking on the issue, another member, Deji Kolawole explain that the agitation for Biafra and other separatist movements that have arisen in Nigeria was as a result of lack of development adding that the government should develop every part of the country irrespective of tribe.

    ” All this agitation is a symptom of lack of development. It is an agitation for development. These people are there to fight for themselves. The government should have a developmental plan for the whole Nigeria so that nobody will be left out. Until we have development everywhere, we will continue to have all this problem,” he said.

    Driving forces of the agitation

    The new agitation for the actualization of Biafra, though commenced by the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), has also received immense support from other pro-Biafra organizations like the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra ( MASSOB), Biafra Zionist Movement (BZM), Bilie Human Rights Initiative and Biafra Alliance (Australia). There is also the Radio Biafra, which has become the

    These various groups had at one time or the other before now, championed various agitation for then actualization of the Biafran state. MASSOB for instance, before it broke into factions and became severely weakened by internal wrangling amongst its leadership, was in the for-front of what nearly became an armed struggle against the Nigerian state.

    Ralp Uwazurike founded MASSOB in September 1999, with a promise to give the people of the Eastern zone a country of their own. Many willing Igbo youths quickly joined MASSOB. But today, Uwazurike has lost control of his followers as his group is now in splinters with the quest to make Biafra a reality abandoned.

    Under the leadership of Ralph Uwazurike, the organization organized rallies and sit-ins across the length and breadth of the southeast. But following incessant clash with security agencies, its leader were arrested, detained and prosecuted. Many of its men are still going through trial in various parts of the country.

    The group also built a house at Okigwe for wounded ex-Biafran soldiers who were relocated from their settlement at Orji River to Okigwe. Aside daring the Nigerian government on many occasions, MASSOB printed Biafra currency, postage stamps, driver’s license, flag, coat-of-arms, and so on. But the items were yet to be put to use anywhere before MASSOB disintegrated.

    So bad was the crisis within MASSOB that in December 2014, members of a faction of the troubled group reportedly sacked Uwazuruike from his mansion, The Biafra House, at his hometown, Okwe near Okigwe in Imo State. The house had been used as the headquarter of the group for many years before then.

    The faction took over the mansion and threatened to deal with their erstwhile leader should he ever come near it. Findings reveled that Uwazuruike now resides in his house at New Owerri, Imo State capital and hardly visits Okwe. The Biafra House, according to recent visitors to the place, is now a ghost of its old bubbling self as it now harbor miscreants and jobless youths posing to be Biafran agitators.

    In 2013, Bilie Human Rights Initiative and Biafra Alliance (Australia) presented a joint petition and summary of a court case they instituted against the Nigerian Government to the Australian government. In a meeting organised by Biafra Alliance (Australia), in conjunction with Radio Biafra, London, in Canberra, Australia recently, the groups said the petition was part of the sensitisation programme aimed at highlighting the sufferings of Southeastern Nigerians at home.

    It was gathered that the pro-Biafran groups were represented by four-man delegation led by Nnamdi Kanu, Director of Radio Biafra, London, who travelled from United Kingdom to Australia; Mazi Okezie Oguh, the leader of Biafra Alliance (Australia) and two others. The Australian government, it was learnt, was represented by high-ranking officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, situated at the R.G. Casey Building, on John McEwen Crescent Barton, Canberra, who received the written submission.

    However, apart from their diplomatic efforts abroad to get recognition for the Biafran nation from world leaders and nation states, neither of the two organizations ventured to come home in pursuit of their agitation. Consequently, they are not known to have any sizable followership here in Nigeira.

    The Biafra Zionist Movement (BZM) was founded in 2010 by a United Kingdom-based lawyer, Benjamin Onwuka, who said it was founded to give “seriousness” to the Biafran dream. Onwuka, who hails from Item in Bende local government area of Abia state, back then, claimed the movement has the backing od Igbo intellectuals in the Diaspora, particularly those residing in the United States and South Africa .

    Before relocating to Nigeria to campaign for the cause, Onwuka shuttled across Nigeria, Europe and America canvassing support for his agitation. Having found its teeth, the group sent an application to the United Nations for an observer status for the Republic of Biafra. The application was submitted to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. Another application for an independent status was sent to the African Union with a request to convene a meeting of Heads of State and Government.

    After a number of violent protests which included the invasion of the Government House, Enugu and holding the place to ransom for nearly four hours, as well as the violent attempted hijack of a television station, Onwuka and members of his group were declared wanted by the Nigerian Police Force.

    On their last known outing, the BZM members, who were led to the television house by Onwuka, killed a police sergeant and wounded another Inspector who were among a four-man police patrol team that rushed to the scene to stop them. A member of the group was also shot dead by the police team.

    Onwuka and many of his men had escaped before the policemen arrived, according to the eyewitness. But days after, police said that the BZM leader and 12 members of his group have been arrested by a team of security operatives who gave them a hot chase while trying to escape into Independence Layout of the Coal City.

    He is still in detention facing trial. The last that was heard of him was in June this year, when he accused Federal High Court judge, Justice D. V. Agishi, sitting in Enugu of being biased just as he requested that the case against him be trans­fered to another court. And with him in jail, the BZM natural became docile.

    But just when the government and the people of Nigeria felt the end had come for the Biafran agitation, Kanu emerged again with IPOB. With incessant attacks on the federal government through his Radio Biafra alongside other hate speeches, he won several Igbo youths over to his pro Biafran ideologies and in no time, became the new face of Biafran Zionism.

    Radio Biafra “mission statement”

    In one of his numerous broadcasts as monitored online, Kanu stated the mission statement of his controversial Radio Biafra thus:

    “The ONLY PURPOSE for the existence of Radio Biafra London is to set a largely misinformed public free from the twin evil of tyrannical rule of a cabal of ill-educated and institutionally corrupt men and women and the sponsored sectarian killings directed against Christian Southerners living in Northern Nigeria by terrorists operating in the name of Islam. It will also serve to articulate a solution to the plight of impoverished and confused Igbo families abandoned by their leaders in Northern Nigeria to a fate worse than those endured by black slaves in plantations in the Americas.

    Radio Biafra London will use and deploy every available resource to campaign for the rights of all oppressed indigenous peoples of Southern Nigeria to determine how they wish to structure their societies and live their lives. Radio Biafra London would broadcast debates on issues of national and international importance affecting the lives and rights of the indigenous peoples of Biafra and indeed indigenous people of all ethnic persuasions in Nigeria.

    Radio Biafra London further wishes to give advance warning to all looters, embezzlers, kidnappers, sponsors of terrorism, child traffickers, corrupt judges, crooked university lecturers, murderous Nigerian security forces and all thieving individuals masquerading as public officials who steal public funds thereby preventing developmental projects from impacting positively on the lives of the ordinary people. These looters and workers of iniquity will be named and shamed.

    There will be no hiding place for common thieves who use the cover of high political offices to steal in the name of Nigerian politics. For Radio Biafra London, there will be nothing like no-go-areas in what can be reported, discussed and analysed. The governing principle of the Public-Right-To-Know of the issues affecting their lives will be rigorously upheld.

    Ever your loyal servant, Nnamdi Kanu.”

    How IPOB was built

    While many people would easily say Kanu built up followership for his new organization, IPOB, by merely using the Radio Biafra to reach out to Igbos in Nigeria, The Nation findings revealed that the Igbo activists did more than just that. Unknown to the authorities, the Radio Biafra boss and some leading operatives of his organization made several visits to the country in pursuit of membership.

    According to a source within the organization, IPOB benefit immensely from the crisis within MASSOB and the detention of leaders of the BZM. He explained that most of Kanu’s foot-soldiers are former members of the two troubled organizations, who, in search of new leadership and direction, easily gravitated towards IPOB.

    “It is wrong for people to say we were just an online organization. Aside using Radio Biafra to spread the messages, we also left the comfort of our home abroad to come down to Nigeria secretly on many occasions to talk to our people and recruit membership. As far back as 2013, we had cell leaders all over the southeast.

    I can tell you that many members of MASSOB and Zioninst Movement joined IPOB out of the need to continue to be identified with the Biafra struggle. Many who were disenchanted with the crisis in the organizations or the detention of their leaders saw in Kanu and IPOB another lifeline and opportunity to continue the struggle.

    If you want to understand this better, go to the Biafra House in Okigwe, which used to be the headquarters of MASSOB, or the BZM offices in Owerri and Aba, you will discover that the people there now are IPOB members. They joined us because at a time, Kanu, through Radio Biafra, was the only Igbo man still talking about actualizing Biafra.

    Amaryllis, the former PR Coordinator for Radio Biafra, confirmed these nocturnal visists in her video confessional when she spoke of how she toured the south-southern states to talk to people about Biafra. According to her, it was her discovery that contrary to claims by Kanu, who probably visited earlier, that there were already many converts in the south-south willing to be part of the agitation, few person bought into the idea, that made her lose interest in Biafra.

    Others, including some leading light of the Biafran struggle, were deeply involved in the 2015 general elections that the struggle suffered badly. But people who are committed to freedom regrouped under IPOB and continued the groundwork for what you are now seeing. Many of the people you see out there came back home from abroad to be part of this struggle,” he said.

    The social media, findings revealed was another major source of IPOB’s membership. It was gathered that over the last three years, the organization opened several social media groups using phony manes to avoid suspicion, to recruit membership across the length and breadth of the country.

    “Many social media pages and groups opened with names that had nothing to do with agitations, were used to reach out to our people. It was easy to remain undetected because all discussions were done in Igbo language. We got a lot of our youths interested in the struggle through constant contact on the social media,” our source added.

    The nation also gathered that the loss of the presidency by former President Goodluck Jonathan and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) also provided veritable ground for recruitment by IPOB. “Many of our people were pro-Jonathan, not for any other reason other than the fact that he is from Biafra. His loss disconnected them from the Nigerian nation.

    Naturally, it was easy to revive the Biafran topic with them and get them interested. PDP leaders also fanned the embers of disconnect by raising fears that the Buhari administration will deal with Igbos for not voting for him. The body language of the ruling party too helped us to spread our message and before you know it, members came in droves.

    There were also some non-agitation groups scattered all over Igboland, working for politicians. But because their Principals lost their positions within the defat of the PDP, it was easy to talk them into Biafran agitation. That is why I can assure you that if we call for protests or any action, the streets will be full. We have the people willing and ready to follow us,” our source added.

    Reasons for renewed agitation

    Founder of the Igbo Youth Movement (IYM) and Deputy Secretary of the Igbo Leaders of Thought (ILT), Evangelist Elliot Uko, while shedding light into the renewed agitation for Biafra, explained why re-living Biafra Republic is attractive to Igbo youths and how best to approach the crisis.

    “The younger generation of Ndigbo are bitter about the structure of Nigeria. They believe that the structure is skewed against them, in politics, in education, in the provision of social infrastructure, and the agitation for Biafra is real. Personally, I don’t agree with them. I’m not advocating for secession, but I know that they are not miscreants because I’ve been talking with them for years. In fact, when Ralph Uwazurike visited me in August of 1999 at Toyin Street in Ikeja and told me that he would establish MASSOB the following week.

    Even though I didn’t attend the event, as I was discussing with him, I told him that he was merely taking advantage of something that has been there in the minds of Ndigbo. Biafra is sacred to Ndigbo. Biafra is about blood, the blood of three million Ndigbo, some killed in cold blood in pogroms in the North; some died out of hunger and starvation; millions of children died of kwashiorkor; people who died in the battle field armed with only two bullets against a much larger and better armed army. It elicits emotion, and it’s the major thing that you can use to manipulate Igbo people to cause trouble anywhere. It’s real. Those who want Biafra are real,” he said.

    He also added that: “The Biafran issue is not about Ralph Uwazurike, Nnamdi Kanu or any individual. I formed my first organization, as a teenager, Igbo Youth Congress, at Delimina Restaurant, 12 Adelabu, in Uwani, Enugu in 1981, 34 years ago. And I know that the most emotional and easiest formula to spark interest and followership among Igbo Youths is the dream to re-live Biafra Republic. They find it so attractive because they believe that not only is Nigeria drawing them backwards but also that they will never get justice in Nigeria due to the envy and hatred of some ethnic groups towards Ndigbo. At one of our meetings, in the early 80s, we took a vote, and over 80 per cent of the youths voted that we should take up arms to fight for Biafra, 34 years ago.

    Again, in Lagos, we were holding monthly meetings in my apartment at 36 Ajakaiye Street, Ikeja, 10 years later, in 1991, we took a vote, and over 90 per cent voted that we should take up arms and fight for Biafra. I’ve been organizing seminars and dealing with Igbo youth for decades, I know that the option of Biafra is so attractive, and it’s a reality. It’s not about Uwazurike and Kanu. In fact, those characters are merely taking advantage of a fact that is on ground, that Nigeria has been unfair to Ndigbo, to the extent that the new generation finds it unacceptable. So, the demand for Biafra is real. They are not miscreants. They are contributing their own money, fighting for what they believe in.”

    Explaining why the agitation for Biafra has continued several decades after civil war, Chief Checkwas Okorie, founder of embattled All Progressive Grand Alliance, APGA, said the issue for the agitation for Biafra has to do with agitation for self-determination by people wish to be treated with fairness, equity and justice.

    “Most of the young men on the street agitating for Biafra were born after the war and so looks like they do not know what led to the war. They cannot understand why their own people since they were born are invariably different from their peers in other parts of the country. The South-east has suffered the most neglect from the Federal Government of Nigeria in terms of road construction. Even under  former President Jonathan’s administration, it was not any better.

    The Buhari’s administration has just begun, so we cannot blame him that much. The matter was not picked up because Buhari became President; the Biafran agitation had been there practically since early 90s. But if  Buhari manages to address the agitation, the issue will die down. After all the Niger-Delta militancy preceeded the late President Yar’Adua. But his political moves doused the tension in that region with the initiative of amnesty,” Okorie said.

    PDP National Youth Leader, Abdullahi MaiBasira, in a statement in Abuja, said President Buhari and his party should be held to account for the escalation of the agitation, “which threatens the unity and national security interests of Nigeria as an indivisible entity.” The PDP also called on the ruling party to ensure and guarantee an inclusive administration that would promote harmony among all sections of the country.

    The party further noted the seemingly lack of any clear-cut policy direction that concerns the development, mainstreaming and inclusion of young people in the country by the Federal Government, insisting it is a worrisome issue that brings to question the ruling All Progressive Congress’ campaign promise to generate and give 3 million jobs annually to Nigerian youths.

    “The fact that none of the President’s ministerial appointees confirmed by Senate is below 40 years also puts to question APC’s belief for the next generation of leaders, mentorship and transfer of responsibility. So far, the resultant effect of this lack of clear-cut policy is the stagnation of the economy and laying-off of thousands of people from their jobs.

    “Rather than the use of force as an option, which usually fails as a solution in this type of self-inflicted socio political problem, President Buhari should, as a matter of national interest and practical necessity, make haste to call representatives and leaders of the Sout East for discussions before the situation deteriorates,” the party said.

     Rejections and denials

    Former governor of Delta State, Chief James Ibori, whose pictures were used during protests in the state by IPOB members, was among the first set of Southern Nigerian personalities and groups to dissociate himself from the movement agitating for the creation of Biafra republic, saying Nigeria remains indestructible. In a statement by his media aide, Mr Eluemunor, Chief Ibori denied any affiliation or association with the protesters and warned against the use of his pictures during protests.

    He also stated that the peace that the country enjoyed for 45 years after the civil war should not be broken by residues being dug up by some people to further divide the nation and betray efforts at national reconciliation and development. This he said must not be allowed.

    A pro-Igbo group, the Igbo Information Network says neither MASSOB nor IPOB has the mandate to speak for the Igbo, arguing that the agitations may not be unconnected with hidden selfish interests. As the group’s leader, Chuks Ibegbu, puts it, “we can no longer continue to pretend that all is well when some groups capitalize on our sad experience of the past to try to railroad us into fighting another avoidable civil war.

    Uwazuruike is today enjoying his stupendous wealth in his palace in Owerri and he occasionally makes noise about his Utopian Biafra on the pages of newspapers. The promoter of Radio Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, was a MASSOB member. He fell out with Uwazuruike some years ago and he ran away from Nigeria and formed the Indigenous People of Biafra whose communication arm is Radio Biafra.

    It is because the power of communication and information is great that Nnamdi Kanu has been able to win the hearts of some Igbo to the envy of Uwazuruike. “The truth about all these pro-Biafra groups is that they have never made any efforts to feel the real pulse of their people. Before we went to a war in the past, the opinion of Igbo and Eastern Leaders of Thought were gauged by Gen. Ojukwu.”

    Rivers State Governor, Nyesom Wike, also warned that his administration will not tolerate pro-Biafra agitations within the state. Wike, who spoke through a statement signed by his Special Adviser on Media and Publicity, Opunabo Inko-Tariah, said he was peeved by the activities of the group.

    The governor stressed the indivisibility of Nigeria and added that the actions of the protesters were capable of stimulating chaos in the state. He also warned against insidious actions by anybody or group in the state.

    “The governor, who was peeved by the protest by members of the Indigenous People of Biafra in Port Harcourt, warned that such a demonstration will not be brooked by his administration. Emphasising the indivisibility of Nigeria, the governor said the actions of IPOB members are capable of stimulating chaos in the state,” the statement read.

    Wike warned that as the Chief Security Officer of the state who swore to an oath to protect lives and property, he would not tolerate actions that would lead to the breakdown of law and order in the state. He, however, dissociated himself and the state from the protest, adding that legal machinery has been set in motion against any group that tries to breach the peace in the state.

    Also, the Imo State Governor, Rochas Okorocha, dissociated his government from the reported violent protests in Rivers, Anambra, and Delta states by IPOB members. In a press release by his Chief Press Secretary, Mr. Sam Onwuemeodo, Okorocha regretted the ugly development, saying that such violent protests in the name of Biafra would not add any value to the development of the South-East.

    Okorocha said, “The governors and leaders of the South-East condemn the protests, especially when they were carried out in the name of Biafra. If a section of the people in the South-East or even the whole people in the geopolitical zone protest over the bad shape of the federal roads in the area or protest over the total negligence of the geopolitical zone, every governor and leader in the area would support that but not to protest over an issue that is neither here nor there.”

    “The South-East is an integral part of Nigeria and the governors and leaders from the area believe in the unity of the country and would always work towards sustaining the unity. And as far as the governors and the leaders of the South-East are concerned, those behind the campaign for Biafra have their ulterior motive, which has nothing to do with corporate interest of the Ndigbo in Nigeria.”

    Way forward

    Proffering solution to the reasons advanced by supporters of the agitation, Braithwaite, who says he cannot say whether the southeast is marginalized or not, urged the federal government to quickly put in place a system that will protect the interests of all persons and groups in the country.

    “I am not saying that the people of the South-East are being marginalised or discriminated against. The people of the South-East are saying so. They are the ones crying out. I cannot answer that question one way. But let us put in place a system where everybody would have a sense of belonging. People would not revolt in an environment where their interests are protected. The overdependence on oil is also an issue. There are many other resources that can be exploited in this country that can bring more revenue than oil,” Braitwaite said.

    The Igbo socio-cultural organization, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, urged the Federal Government to exercise restraint in handling the various groups clamouring for the actualization of Biafra. The President of the Ohanaeze Youth Council, Mazi Okechukwu Isiguzoro, in a statement, said dialogue was the only way out of the various agitations.

    He called on the Federal government to address various cries of marginalization in the South-East zone. The statement read in part: “We are circumstantially compelled to take a definitive stand and position on issues that have the ability to threaten our corporate existence as one indivisible nation.

    “Following agitations of neglect in the political appointments made thus far by the President Muhammadu Buhari administration from our compatriots in the south east, the needless call for the secession from Nigeria by MASSOB, the treasonable felony been perpetrated by one Nnamdi Kanu, under the aegis of Indigenous People of Biafra(IPOB), and his Radio Biafra, his arrest and the simultaneous coordinated protest rallies that followed as the its aftermath, is of great concern to us and calls for caution and deeper reflection for us as people and nation.

    “To the extent that we are not satisfied in the happenings in the polity particularly as it affects our region,it remains imperative that we submit our yearnings with a voice of reason. It stands as an immutable and sacrosanct fact that the unified and continuous existence of Nigeria as an indivisible entity cannot be compromised on any score.

    “The hyperactive agitators and proponents of secession perhaps have not sat down to count the cost of a divided nation which will borne by the igbos nation particularly our Youth whose future and strenuously built investments stand at risk.

    “The business concerns of igbo businessmen and women extend across all geopolitical zones of the country the north and south,these meticulously built investments running into trillions of naira cannot be mortgaged on the plinth of unbridled sentimental proclivities,As we believe that Mr.President is a listening Leader and we can achieve more through peaceful dialogue.”

    As a quick win strategy to end the uprising in the South East, President Buhari has been tasked to set up a national mediation committee made up of credible statesmen and women to be led by Bishop Mathew Hassan Kukah to actively work out the most transparent mechanisms to achieve lasting peace and reach the most acceptable and democratic panacea to the agitations.

    In a statement signed jointly by the National Coordinator Comrade Emmanuel Onwubiko and the National Media affairs Director Miss Zainab Yusuf of the Human Rights Writers Association Of Nigeria (HURIWA) said President Muhammadu Buhari must avoid the mistakes of previous administrations such as the then President Olusegun Obasanjo who used brutal force to seek to crush dissenting voices from some communities thereby compounding the destructions that has led to heavy financial penalties that has been imposed on the Nigerian State by the court of law.

    HURIWA said the current President Muhammadu Buhari must be wary of adopting any military and violent measures against the civilian pro-Biafra protesters in order not to be personally dragged before the global crimes court- ICC in The Hague Netherlands for prosecution over crimes against humanity.

    It said everything must be done to stop bloodshed and forceful quelling of the unprecedented pro-Biafra agitations by purely unarmed protesters. The Rights group has also demanded the immediate and unconditional release from the underground cells of the Department of State Service of the Director of the Europe Based Radio Biafra and leader of the Free People of Biafra (IPOB) Mr Nnamdi Kanu who is being detained as a political prisoner even after a court of law freed him on bail.

    Uko, explaining what must be done to stop the agitation, called on the federal government to addfress the issues of true federalism in the interest of peace in the country. He said: “That Nigerian leaders chose to shy away from the truth by going round in circle while dodging the real issue, does not in any way mean that solution could be found by cutting corners.

    There is no other way to move Nigeria forward in peace and unity without addressing the national question. Our political structure, the 1999 militarily inspired constitution are some of the reasons why millions of our country men do not believe in Nigeria. That is the most urgent task facing any government. When we revert to true federalism, all our problems will be reduced including corruption, unemployment, secession, etc.”

    Human rights lawyer, Mike Ozekhome (SAN), said that the Buhari-led federal government should avoid the use of brute force in finding a solution to the renewed agitations for Biafra Republic by certain groups in the country. Ozekhome, while giving examples of countries that forcibly broke up in the past, said the federal government must urgently look into why the Igbos are calling for secession even after the end of the Biafra Civil War.

    According to him “The United Nations Charter and the African charter of Human and Peoples Right both recognise the rights of people of the world for self determination as to how the world will co-exist and live together.

    But will these approaches satisfy the pro-Biafran agitators? Or are they likely to insist on nothing short of the actualization of their dreamland – Biafra? These are questions that only events of the future can answer. Until then, the country may continue to grapple with the effects of this new threat from the land of the rising Sun.