The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Biafra

  • Ohanaeze: we can’t get Biafra through violence

    The Ohanaeze Ndigbo has said the actualisation of the sovereign state of Biafra would not be achieved by fighting, noise making, name-calling and insults.

    The President-General, Chief John Nnia Nwodo, spoke at a lecture series organised by the Student Affairs Department of the University of Nigeria (UNN), College of Medicine, Ituku-Ozalla, Enugu State. The lecture was themed: “Excellence in Character and Learning as a tool for Restoration of the Dignity of Man”.

    Nwodo said Biafra can only be actualised through “political diplomacy”. He noted that things can only be changed through the ballot box, and urged the people to participate in the electoral process.

    He said: “We cannot get Biafra by fighting and insulting people. We cannot get restructuring by shouting, we can only get it through political diplomacy.”

    Nwodo urged everyone, especially Ndigbo, to obtain their voters card and be part of the electoral process.

    The President-General recently accused the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) of secretly plotting to disenfranchise Ndigbo from participating in the 2019 elections by not making it possible for them to partake in the Continuous Voter Registration (CVR).

     

  • Hunted for IPOB

    Hunted for IPOB

    The quest to silence the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB) did not end with the Python Dance, a military operation launched against the secessionist group last year. There is still a manhunt for members of the organisation who once protested in Germany.

    You have not heard the last of the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB) or of the people who embraced its cause.

    Late last year a military onslaught codenamed Python Dance routed the group in Abia State. The home of its leader Nnamdi Kanu’s father near Umuahia was raided, with some claiming that the secessionist group suffered heavy casualties. Kanu himself has since disappeared, and the group has gone quiet. But the hunt for its members has continued apace. It is reckoned that many of them have been rounded up, even those who demonstrated their support in foreign lands.

    Johncollins Osuji, a staunch member of the proscribed group, is one such person being hunted for his role in a protest last year in Germany. Johncollins hails from Ihitte Afara in Mbaitoli Council Area of Imo State, where his family is said to be constantly harassed by security forces looking for him.

    Life has become a nightmare for Johncollin’s family members because of that pro-Biafra protest organised by the group in Germany last year.

    Johncollins and other IPOB members that participated in the May 30 protest at the British Embassy in Germany are wanted by security operatives in Nigeria.

    Worse, the villagers now corroborate with security agencies to torment the family. They are stigmatised over their brother’s IPOB ties. Day and night, they are hounded by security operatives, who storm their homes in search of him for his role in the 2017 protest in Germany. The Federal Government saw the otherwise peaceful protest as a major embarrassment that will not go unpunished.

    Johncollins alongside other IPOB members who participated in the protest were declared wanted by the Army during the operation ‘Python Dance’ launched by the Nigerian Army to suppress Biafra agitation by the IPOB and other pro-Biafra groups.

    IPOB was labelled a terrorist group by the Federal Government and was subsequently proscribed.

    The Federal Government has also declared all leading IPOB members wanted, including the leader Nnamdi Kanu who has been missing since soldiers raided his father’s house.

    Trouble started for Johncollins after his fellow IPOB members who returned from the protest at the British Embassy in Germany were picked up by security operatives upon returning to the country.

    One of the traumatised elder sisters, Priscila Osuji said they were forced to vacate their home when they could no longer cope with the incessant harassments by security operatives hunting for their brother Johncollins.

    She said, “When we heard that his friends who also went for the protest have all been arrested with some members of their families, we became apprehensive because we were afraid that they will come for him. One night in June last year, some armed men who were not in uniform but we suspected them to be DSS operatives came to our house and demanded the whereabouts of my brother and we told them that he travelled and had not returned they threatened to arrest our mother but when they saw that she was old and frail they left her and warned us to send a message to him to report at the nearest police station.

    “After that, soldiers attached to the ‘Operation Python Dance stormed our home in search of my brother and they manhandled everybody in sight. But my brother has not committed any crime apart from the non-violent agitation for Biafra and the protest at the British Embassy at Germany which is also non-violent. We are worried about what will happen to him if he comes back and they get him. Nobody has heard about his colleague that were arrested and that is our fear”.

    Also narrating his ordeal in a telephone chat, the embattled Johncollins, said, “We held a protest on May 30th 2017 at the British Embassy in Düsseldorf, Germany against the ill-treatment of Biafra agitators, especially IPOB members but after the protest, we heard that the IPOB protesters are wanted in Nigeria for what they called radical protest against British government in Germany”.

    Speaking further, he said, “Some of the protesters that returned to Nigeria have been arrested and they are still looking for many of us. I have also been told that soldiers and other security operatives have been harassing my family members. We were not violent during the protest, just as in all other protests by IPOB members but the Nigerian government to arrest and imprison us for nothing just because we are championing the fight for the actualisation of sovereign state of Biafra”.

    Efforts to get the reaction of the Army proved abortive as they declined comment on the matter. But a security source who didn’t want his name mentioned because he was not authorised to speak on the matter, told The Nation that “the Germany protest and other similar protests around the world by members of the proscribed group, IPOB was a huge embarrassment to the government and all those involved will face the full wrath of the law. We have credible intelligence about the identities of all the IPOB protesters, especially those that protested at the British Embassy in Germany, some of them are already in custody while the manhunt for others are on. IPOB has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation and the government will not allow the miscreants to undermine the sovereignty of the nation”.

    The Imo State Police Public Relations Officer Andrew Enwerem  echoed the same sentiments, adding, “IPOB members complaining about harassment will see more because we don’t want to see them again.”

  • Omatseye and Biafra

    I’m certainly not a fan of Nnamdi Kanu or the method in which he had sometimes talked about securing his conviction. But introspection would help us understand that a line should be drawn between a man, his ideology and the method he seeks to achieve this ideology.

    History might not have spoken convivially of Nelson Mandela if he had instituted a guerrilla army and told the Black folks in Soweto to go about and hunt down white folks in a bid to secure the freedom of the black people in South Africa, which cause has been described as the Noblest of all. Another example is Ghandi whose peaceful political movement raved in India in the second quarter of the 20th century and eventually eased India into her independence. Conversely, the Niger Delta militants’ tactics in seeking for fair treatment in the Nigerian federal set-up is one which is condemnable by any civilized mind; however, their cause cannot be faulted if we choose to be true to ourselves.

    Yet, the agitation of the militants of the Niger-Delta region of Nigeria is no less noble than the agitations of Mandela or Ghandi; the difference only lies in the method employed in attainment of the cause. That difference notwithstanding, it would not accord with sound reasoning to dismiss the method employed in attaining such cause together with the ideology or cause.

    The ideology of and agitation for Biafra is one of the least problems of Nigeria, especially to a ‘’non-Igbo’’ since its attainment would hardly have any effect on them. In truth really, the Biafra ideology and agitation rather than a problem is a solution to the country’s problems because it asks fundamental questions of our foundation as a country and the workings of our federalism, which is probably the most topical issue in contemporary polity. If this ‘’Biafra issue’’ is legitimately addressed with a sincerity of purpose and not cowed into a coma or buried in a shallow grave with the force of firearms as was done between 1967-1970, we might just have solved a problem rather than created one.

    Closure, just like patriotism is not what a country foists on her citizens, but what by honest interaction/communication, altruistic and fair disposition towards the aggrieved/assaulted group, that group is made to see reasons to accept and abide by. The U.S.A, which is the paradigm of federalism the world over, at the end of their civil war did not pay lip service in their policy of assimilating the secessionist south but made honest efforts in that respect which ultimately led to a dissident-free U.S.A in which all the federating units, both North and South have worked in unison to create a country most of our leaders queue up to get their visa. Perhaps if this method were adopted by the Nigerian government at the end of the civil war, The Nation’s Sam Omatseye would probably have applied his ink towards a more problematic facet of our collective everyday lives rather than fervently and fervidly trying to convince us of the death of something that confronts and stares at us every day.

    Just like the MKO Abiola issue which successive administrations have repeatedly and earnestly tried to shut out from our consciousness, The Nation despite those cowardly attempts has consistently featured articles in which writers have tried to relive our consciousness of that unfortunate incident and I think it would be offensive to the Yoruba psyche and inappropriate for any person to tell the Yoruba people that that issue is dead and buried, more so if this ‘’insight’’ comes from a non-Yoruba.

    The Yoruba community even with the appeasements and propitiations that was made to them by the military administration at the wake of the fourth republic (which they have termed as a façade) to serve as atonement for scuttling the entitlement of their kinsman, they still do not feel assuaged and would become confrontational if you try to play down the effects of the ramifications of the June 12 debacle and rightly so.

    Now to the Biafra issue. I believe the fundamental question every person should ask first is this; have these people who are seeking for Biafra been treated fairly in this Nigerian union compared to the regions? If your honest answer is ‘’yes’’, then you can go ahead to criticize. But if your answer is no, then you can now without prejudice to the fundamental question criticize the methodology and the person behind it and maybe proffer an honest solution, as a person who is his brother’s keeper.

    Secondly, if a people say they want to go or do not seek to be part of a union, I don’t think wisdom backs the option of telling them ‘’No’’ you must remain part of us. I don’t think we should split our hairs about it. I don’t think it is the path trodden by reasonable men to oppose a people who would rather go in peace than remain in war or disunity, lest we forget what happened to Pharaoh and his people because of the Israelites.

    If any other tribe or part of Nigeria decides to quit the Nigerian union; a democratic union where the will of a geo-political zone dictates the fate of the remaining five geo-political zones, for whatever reason whether noble or bad and they don’t intend to kill or maim any person by their leaving, why would I oppose them? What is the essence of the right to self determination enshrined in the United Nations declarations? Is it just to decorate the pages of the treaty with unrealizable rights?

    If a people say they are going, why not let them go? If I think their venture is folly and I call myself a friend, I would only advise them on what I think best for them but not oppose them or write articles that are offensive to their psyche in a bid to stop them. I don’t think I would lose sleep because a section of the country says they want to go or start writing volumes of polemical pieces about the idea. Such disposition smacks of desperation and may suggest that the writer is not as altruistic as he wants us to believe he is.

    My idea is, if a part of Nigeria says it wants to go and seeks to adopt a civilized method of going, why would I try to stop them? As a writer, I would rather channel my energy, resource, time and talent in writing about more pressing issues gnawing at the country than trying to stop a people who have decided to assert a right internationally guaranteed.

    In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, William Faulkener said that a writer must leave ‘’ no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and the truths of the heart, the old universal truth lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed-love and honour and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so he labours under a curse. He writes not of love but lust…not of the heart but of the glands. Until he relearns these things he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man.’’

    I want to end this piece by re-echoing the words of the American revolutionist Patrick Henry when he said; ‘’…no man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as the abilities of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject from different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful of those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve…it is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself guilty of treason toward my country and an act of disloyalty toward my conscience and the Majesty of Heaven, which revere above all earthly kings.’’

    It is in the light of the sentiment above expressed that I write.

    • Oluigbo writes from Onitsha, Anambra State.

     

     

  • ‘The struggle for Biafra is misplaced’

    ‘The struggle for Biafra is misplaced’

    Chief Ndukwe Iko is a former Abia State governorship aspirant. In this interview with Oziegbe Okoeki, he speaks about the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOD), Nnamdi Kanu, the chance of President Muhammadu Buhari in 2019 election and other issues. 

    Many people believe that Nnamdi Kanu got the Biafra agitation wrong. What is your position?

    I will not say specifically that this is where he got it wrong, but I will point out a few things. The Biafran struggle started in late 1967 by the late Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu with a serious concept which was very clear to all.

    It was built on the fact that people are marginalised and not allowed to maximally develop their potentials as it were. There was this serious issue of ethnic distrust which led to the attempt to break away from Nigeria.

    Nnamdi’s course on this is a little divergent from the original concept of Biafra. If you ask me, Biafra wasn’t an Ibo course, it was a course built on the feelings of people in the South that they were being short changed and were not allowed to maximise their potential. So, reducing the struggle to an Ibo struggle is one of the places Kanu got it wrong.

    There was no articulate plan to push the secession drive to the right places. There is no how Ibos could secede from Nigeria without a very strong representation at some of the world and regional bodies like the African Union (AU) and the United Nations (UN). I don’t know what effort he may have put in to attract such sympathies from these world bodies, but he also got it wrong there.

    He also got it wrong by not galvanising the support of Ibo leaders both elected and elders. What effort did he put in place to ensure that such leaders both inside the country and outside the country are on the same page with him?

    There was also no serious or articulate engagement and he ended up causing a lot of nuisance, especially in the Southeast. Be that as it may, I think his voice has been heard clearly that there is something wrong with this nation and that is where I will say kudos to him.

    What lesson is there in all this; first for the Southeast and Nigeria as a whole?

    The lesson is straight for the Federal Government, which is that there is no unity in the country. The truth remains that nation building has failed to the extent that people are not proud to identify themselves as Nigerians, but instead they identify themselves with their ethnic groups. Tribal sentiments is still very high; we do not like ourselves as a people.

    Another lesson is that there is no social, political and economic justice, which has been the cry of so many for a long time. People should be given the opportunity to develop their potentials to the fullest not minding their ethnicity.

    For the Southeasterners, because of the level of depravity in the Southeast, every person that preaches the gospel like Kanu becomes a hero automatically. The Ibos should organise themselves properly, Ohanaeze should rise up to their responsibility by ensuring first that there is good governance in the whole of Southeast.

    Do you think Southeast governors did the right thing by proscribing IPOB?

    They did the right thing to the extent that they saw the guy as a threat. Politicians saw him as a threat. One thing about politics is that you have only one loyalty at a time. All contending politicians would think that this boy has a certain loyalty or the order, so I think they worked against him. Secondly, there is no government in a government. Government is a very strong institution that hates or it is very jealous of its existence. Kanu went to the extent that Southeast governors began to feel threatened. However, proscription, python dance or what have you in the Southeast will not end the clamour for good governance. The benefit of democracy must be made to reach the people, otherwise we will keep struggling and Nigeria will keep driving very speedily towards disintegration.

    Many people have said that restructuring remains the only solution to stop such agitations. What in your opinion is restructuring?

    I am a good apostle of good governance and I preach it and want everybody to embrace it. Without good governance, restructuring will be messed up. Restructuring means reducing items on the Federal Government’s Exclusive List and devolving such powers to the regions. For instance, education; I don’t see the reason why states or regions should not have educational policies that they feel will suit them. Zamfara State, for example, may not have similar educational needs as Abia State.

    There are other issues in the Exclusive List that should still come down to the regions or states. Some people call it true federalism, which is some elements of restructuring people are clamouring for.

    I don’t know why people should be afraid of resource control. It simply means you develop what you have for the best of your own use and that of the country. It does not mean being selfish with what you have. Every section of the country is endowed. It means you develop what you have, maximize it and throw such for the use of the country.

    Nigerians voted the PDP out in 2015 but, two years after, they appear to be disillusioned with the APC…

    Let me tell you something, the biggest tragedy of a nation is going back to its vomit. Just two years after ditching former President Goodluck Jonathan and the PDP, people are clamouring for them to come back. This is a tragedy in itself; that means we don’t know what we want as a country.

    It is not about election, Buhari or Jonathan, but the poor foundation on which Nigeria was built. Nigeria was built on a very poor foundation full of lapses and terrible. No matter who you bring here, he can not perform; that is the truth. That the APC has not been able to do much in over two years is due to structural defects. Where every contractor and businessmen as well as industrialists want to identify with the government in power for their patronage is structural defect.

    Now Buhari is sick and everybody knows that; still you see some people asking him to vie for a second term. Seriously, something is wrong with this country. If we don’t change the current Nigerian structure, I’m afraid 2019 holds little or no hope for the country. Yes, Buhari is good; I campaigned and voted for him, because of his integrity. But governance or leadership does not revolve around integrity; you need everything, including physical strength.

    What are the chances of Buhari in 2019 election?

    If his decision is not influenced by what I will call centrifugal forces, of course he has the right to decide to contest. Why not?

    But election has a lot of unresolved issues in Nigeria. The ethnic, religious and money questions are very serious. Ethnicity and religion play important roles in Nigerian election and politicians play that card and that is part of our problem.

    Nigeria is the only country where you have 50 per cent Christian and 50 per cent Muslims. Ethnicity, even more than corruption, is the biggest problem Nigeria has now. It is also fuelling corruption, because people say, I come from this place and that place. So, let me use the opportunity I have in government to grab this or that and go and help my people.

    So, the chances of the president coming back to power in 2019 are high on the strength of where he comes from. Ethnicity and religion will help Buhari come back to power, because the Southeast that is clamouring gave him less than 10 per cent vote in 2015; although that could also make a lot of difference in an election. But, in terms of performance and the aspiration of Nigerians that he has failed to meet, it will be a very big injustice to political development for him to come back.

    What are the issues surrounding the Paris Club refund to states?

    If you bring $1billion everyday to the governors, they will waste it. I have been opportuned to be very close to some of them and I can tell you that what you think is not what they think.

    Every month, they look forward to the funds that come from the Federation Account and even before the funds arrive, they have already appropriated it to things, largely on selfish purposes. Remember when this administration came on board, the first thing they did was to intervene in some states that were not paying salaries. How many of the states used the intervention fund to pay salaries?

    Some of these governors are not serious and think differently from the electorates. They have their private matters that they use state funds to take care of. For instance, a high-rankimg commissioner once came to my village town hall meeting and boasted that the state government was owing only two months’ salaries. When he left shortly, my uncle collapsed at the local government secretariat where they went for teachers’ verification exercise. As at that time, they were owing six months.  The governors do not have the interest of the masses at heart; it is their private interest. Every time they receive money, like ecological fund, they buy new houses abroad. That is the trend and there is competition in that trend. That is why we have to think of the way to nip corruption in the bud through restructuring.

  • Catalonia speaks to Biafra

    Separatist struggles are hazardous everywhere. It is as much the case in perhaps every nation of the world as it is in the staunched aspiration for Biafra secession in Nigeria. Just take a look at Spain, and you would see a country that had a huge dose of the attendant animus in the past week.

    Catalonia – an autonomous region of Spain – had lately revved up its quest to cut loose from the country, thus escalating a standoff with the Spanish government. Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont last Tuesday walked the tight rope by signing a unilateral declaration that gave his region all-clear to break away from Spain, while simultaneously dialing down on the region’s bluster to immediately spring free. Puigdemont said the effect of the declaration was being suspended for some weeks as his government sought dialogue with the Spanish state to resolve the self-determination dispute. Catalonia is one of Spain’s wealthiest regions, accounting for a quarter of the country’s exports, and separatists have argued that they yield far more to the national treasury than they get.

    If he gambled on forcing the hand of Spain, the Catalan leader drew a blank. He was backed up the wall by Madrid, which on Wednesday issued him an eight-day ultimatum to drop the independence bid or the region risked losing its constitutional autonomy. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said Puigdemont had five days to confirm that Catalonia had indeed cut free from Spain; and if so, three more days to back down or Madrid would invoke Article 155 of the country’s constitution that empowers the central government to roll back a region’s autonomy and assume direct control if such region defaults on “obligations imposed upon it by the constitution or other laws, or acts in a way that is seriously prejudicial to the general interest of Spain.”

    Puigdemont had on Tuesday cited a controversial referendum lately held in his region as the basis for independence declaration. Catalonia on October 1st forced its way through with a vote that the Spanish government deemed illegal and tried to halt, and which the country’s Constitutional Court forbade. The referendum’s outcome was predictable, as opponents of the independence bid largely boycotted the ballot in which some 43 percent of the region’s 5.3million eligible voters were reported to have participated, and from which Catalan leaders declared nearly 90 percent ‘yes’ vote for independence. There were reports of widespread irregularities in the ballot, and pervasive violence as security agents laid siege on polling stations to head off the vote.

    Addressing the Catalan parliament in Barcelona, but with the rapt attention of an apprehensive world audience, Puigdemont had said: “Thanks to the results of the referendum of 1st October, Catalonia has earned the right to be an independent state.” But he stepped back from immediately activating the declaration, so to make room for talks with Madrid. “We are reaching out in the hope of dialogue,” he stated.

    His fudging did not wash, though, with hardcore Catalan separatists, who described his speech as “an unacceptable act of traitorship.” Radical elements within Catalonia’s political establishment, like the far-left Popular Unity Candidacy party (CUP), wanted him to push through with the independence declaration.

    And neither did it assuage the irritation of Spanish authorities in Madrid, who threatened the hitherto unused Article 155 to thwart Catalonia’s bid. But even as Rajoy, the Spanish premier, foreclosed negotiation on Catalan independence, which he considered the most serious threat to Spain’s 40-year-old democracy and a violation of the country’s constitution that stipulates “indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation,” he indicated willingness to discuss constitutional reforms that would further strengthen regional autonomy.

    As with all separatist bids, Catalan independence from Spain is by no means a unanimous goal of all Catalans. In other words, there are many pro-status quo Catalans over whom Puigdemont and his separatist crowd are riding rough shod with their push. Besides those who boycotted the recent referendum, for instance, there are political parties within that region espousing a cardinal mission to leash the separatists. Even the mayor of Catalonia’s capital city of Barcelona, Ada Colau, counseled restraint on both sides and urged preference for dialogue. “I ask them (Puigdemont and Rajoy) not to take any decision that might blow up the…space for dialogue and mediation. That is the most courageous act they could do now,” she said.

    On the other hand, Spanish politicians reached across the partisan divide to root for the constitutional order, even though they recognised a need to pursue reforms. That is to say they would not ‘play politics’ with their country’s destiny. The leader of the main opposition party, Pedro Sanchez of the Socialists, said his party would back action by the government “in the face of any attempt to break social harmony.” His party and the government, according to him, had agreed to explore using constitutional reform to end the crisis, but this would focus on “how Catalonia remains in Spain, and not how it leaves.”

    Catalonia’s independence bid faced other challenges, which included the cold shoulder from the business and international communities. Even with the economic primacy of the region, a stream of companies announced plans to move their head offices out of the province in response to the crisis.

    And contrary to apparent expectation by the Catalan leadership, the international community tanked up on not wading in what was considered an internal affair of Spain. Although the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, reportedly placed an 11th hour call to Puigdemont on Tuesday, urging him to respect the constitutional order and not do anything that would hinder dialogue, no third party has shown willingness to mediate the crisis. Meanwhile, the European Union has made clear that should Catalonia break off from Spain, the region would cease to be a part of the EU. A spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she had “affirmed her backing for the unity of Spain” in a phone call with the Spanish premier, Mariano Rajoy. And in France, the government said if Catalonia declared independence from Spain, it would not be recognised.

    Unilateral breakaways are never a cakewalk – neither in accomplishing the goal nor in securing legitimacy for the outcome. That is a reality the recent manic push for Biafra secession from Nigeria by hotheaded South-East youths seems to miss out on, and the reason why the moderate disposition of the elders and political leaders of that region have moral primacy. There is no question there are challenges of gross inequity in the Nigerian federation today requiring urgent redress; and that is not just for the Igbo, but even more so for ethnic minorities. And so, it is far from true that Nigerian unity is settled, as President Muhammadu Buhari declared on his return from medical leave recently. Nigerian unity must be renegotiated and the federation restructured – a call that seems to be catching on now even in the conservative North.

    But the helmsman of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, John Nnia Nwodo, was bang on the nail when he said last week that though the Igbo were unhappy with their position in Nigeria, agitation for Biafra was off the mark. “We should forget Biafra and insist on restructuring,” he admonished. That, to my mind, is a realistic and more feasible option.

    Please join me on kayodeidowu.blogspot.be for conversation.

  • Like Catalonia Like Biafra II

    Philip Agbese

    The projects were dead on arrival. Their only beneficiaries were the so called separatist leaders, who used the agitation for secession to bilk unsuspecting donors, sponsors, financers and backers even when they knew from the onset that what they were offering their followers has lesser value than a snake oil cure. They cheated the fanatical ones among their broods of their lives and limbs as they sent them on suicide missions in confrontation against constituted authorities knowing that their illegitimate activities would be met with firm state response. They lied to lied to their followers without remorse.
    This week, after putting the whole of Spain on edge, Catalonia’s leader, Carles Puigdemont, settled for a symbolic declaration of independence from Spain based on 90% pro-secession votes of 2.3million Catalans. Puigdemont deferred the real declaration of independence “by some weeks” even though common sense shows the topic is being eased out of the public space in a manner that allows the hardline secessionists some face saving grace while keeping opportunities open to again test the corporate integrity of Spain in the future.
    In Nigeria, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, who had vowed to sacrifice his life to realize the defunct Biafra republic did not enjoy the fortune of face saving just as his toxic approach to issues alienated even those that were once his sympathizers. Like a chastised cur, Kanu fled with his tail between his legs – he smuggled himself out of Nigeria, incognito, reportedly back to the London, United Kingdom, where he once subsisted between living on state provided welfare package and being a care worker before discovering he could make billions of naira off those deluded by the pipe dream of a revived Biafra.
    Incidentally, Kanu and the most rabid of his brood of feral followers had wallowed in the illusion that Catalonia would light the way for their perverted vision of a balkanized Nigeria. They had marketed the fraud that the United Kingdom and the European Union (EU) would invade Nigeria to help them create a new capital for Biafra in Afaraukwu, where Nnamdi Kanu would reign as the first imperial supreme leader under some bizarre monarchy possibly after killing off his own father, who is another monarch. The Catalonian independence struggle was for IPoB a justification to argue that the new trend in the world is for countries to voluntarily fragment to suit ethnic and tribal whims. Anyone that still believes that bunkum should have their medication evaluated for potential psychotropic side effects.
    Suffering the same strain of delusion as Kanu, Puigdemont too had expected an EU censure when Spanish riot police unleashed the harshest crackdown of the year to stall Catalan’s referendum that even the Supreme Court ruled to be illegal. It came to the point where Puigdemont practically groveled as he pleaded for EU intervention that never came. The supra-national organisation knows better than to interfere in the internal affairs of a member nation and it promptly and rightly pointed that out. If the sledgehammer was slammed on the fly when the referendum held then the equivalent of a nuclear weapon would be detonated to kill a rat if Catalan dares press ahead with declaring independence. Options reportedly in the offing in such scenario is a full-fledged direct rule from Madrid, a fate worse than the current arrangement that guarantees Catalonia some measure of autonomy.
    This was an insight that the governors of Nigeria’s five south-east states had to promptly proscribe the activities of IPoB before the court declared it a terrorist group. The path chosen by Kanu, which was more vexatious than the approach adopted by Puigdemont, was guaranteed to bring those states under emergency rule – the Constitution (as amended) has provision for declaring State of Emergency when situation degenerates in any part of the country but interestingly is mute on holding a referendum for secession. The demented chant of “no referendum, no election” by IPoB members is meaningless as the court would easily rule the conduct of a referendum as illegal, which would place the rebirth of Biafra via referendum on a footing weaker than that of Catalan.
    Catalonians have retreated to lick their wounds and if they are smart they would engage in some soul searching while at it. In the wake of being declared a terrorist group, IPoB members similarly indicated that they merely retreated to come back in a more ferocious manner – they are already manifesting what they imply through the return of a more toxic version of hate speech targeting other ethnic nationalities. Retreating to review strategies and alliances as the Catalonians are doing is beyond IPoB, it requires too much mental effort for a rabble led by a scam artist.
    The duty falls by default to the elected representatives and governors in the south-east to avert their geopolitical zone being catalaned. In this regard, it is encouraging that one of IPoB/Kanu’s cheerleaders and Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, is now singing a new song – chanting hallelujahs to Nigeria’s unity. Ekweremadu, who once marketed the IPoB leader as a victimized freedom fighter told an audience in the United States that “We must continue to assure that the best way to go is restructuring, not dismemberment of the country.”
    Other political leaders that had backed IPoB and other Biafran separatists against the state have a further responsibility to take a trip to Catalan, a mental trip at the very least. Then they would realize that pursuing the resurrection of a defunct republic that was committed to the grave through a costly civil war is not the way to go. This time around Biafra II may not be as fortunate as Catalan, and to think their woes are just beginning.
    Agbese is a U.K. based public affairs commentator and publisher.

  • Guns cannot kill the spirit of Biafra, says Prophet Okafor

    Guns cannot kill the spirit of Biafra, says Prophet Okafor

    Dialogue, not guns, will tackle the raging agitations for self-declaration in the South East, the general overseer of Mountain of Liberation and Miracle Ministries otherwise known as Liberation City Lagos, Dr Chris Okafor, has stated.
     
    He said military actions or exercises will not deliver the much-needed peace in the region.
     
    Okafor spoke last Sunday at the grand finale of the annual Not my head, not my blood outreach of the church in its Lagos international headquarters.
     
    He dismissed military exercise code named Python Dance 2 and Egwu Eke 2 as futile in quelling the unrest, saying only dialogue will breed peace.  
     
    He spoke from the headquarters of his thriving ministry in the Ojodu area of Lagos.
     
    Okafor stressed:  “Our government needs to learn how to resolve issues with dialogue. No amount of time or resources expended towards dialogue is a waste.
     
    “This is not 1967. Anybody who thinks that they can kill an agitation like Biafra with force is truly living in fools’ paradise. It can never happen!
     
    “Biafra is a spirit. Wasn’t it Ojukwu who started it? He’s gone but Biafra is still here.
     
    “You can’t kill a spirit with guns and arrows, not even with a nuclear bomb.
     
    “If Ojukwu’s exit did not kill the agitation, how can any human being think or believe that Nnamdi Kanu’s exit will kill the agitation?”
     
    He went on: “As a matter of fact, more people have now joined the agitation and mark my words, worst people than Nnamdi Kanu will soon emerge.
     
    “They are already there and nobody knows how peaceful those ones will be. We should behave like a 21st century constitutional entity and stop using force to do everything.
     
    “Dialogue is the only way out and the government of the day must take advantage now.”
     
    He said the nation should restructure to address ethnic agitations, saying Nigeria is always better together as one.
     
    According to him: “I am not in no way advocating for the dismemberment of Nigeria.
     
     “Let us keep praying for the country because if we don’t pray, we will all share from what is to come.
     
    “We must pray in particular that God should give our leaders the wisdom to steer the ship of State in the right direction. Wisdom, the bible says, is profitable to direct.”
  • MASSOB: Kanu remains ‘Biafra hero’ dead or alive

    MASSOB: Kanu remains ‘Biafra hero’ dead or alive

    The Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign state of Biafra (MASSOB) said yesterday the missing leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, is a true hero of Biafra, even dead or alive.

    MASSOB described Kanu as a determined man who was destined for the actualisation of Biafra.

    In a statement posted by its leader, Uchenna Madu, MASSOBB said: “Kanu does not pose any danger to Nigeria’s existence; the problem that poses a dangerous extinction to Nigeria’s existence is Hausa/Fulani domination of Nigeria over the general interest of other ethnic nationalities.”

    MASSOB said Kanu had proven to be a loved figure for championing the self-determination struggle for the actualisation and restoration of Biafra.

  • ‘Urhobo inclusion in IBOP’s Biafra vexatious’

    The Urhobo in Delta State have disavowed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and Movement for the Actualisation of Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), saying they are not part of their agitations.

    They slammed IBOP’s inclusion of Urhobo land in the widely-circulated Biafra map, noting that the purported document was a product of ignorance.

    The Chairman of 24 Urhobo kingdoms’ President-Generals Forum and ex-Deputy President-General of Urhobo Progress Union (UPU),  Olorogun Peter Obakponovwe, who made the assertion, lambasted IPOB and MASSOB for “holding rallies to demand Republic of Biafra, which we don’t even know about.”

    He said: “Let me tell you, the word Biafra is derived from Bight of Biafra, which is concavity of Atlantic Ocean, such as Rivers, Cross River and Akwa-Ibom states. There is no Igbo access to Bight of Biafra.

    “There is no historical connection of the Urhobo with these so-called IPOB and MASSOB. Saying Urhobo is part of Biafra is very stupid of them. It is capable of causing uproar and conflict.

    “They should withdraw that statement.”

    Obakponovwe added: “If IPOB wants to claim the Igbo as part of Biafra of Delta State, that is their concern, but as for Urhobo nation, Kwale, Ijaw, Itsekiri and Isoko they want to claim, they are not part of them.”

    He warned IBOP’s Nnamdi Kanu to stay clear of Urhobo nation and others.

  • IPOB: I’m disappointed leaders did not warn ‘hot-headed’ youths-Buhari

    IPOB: I’m disappointed leaders did not warn ‘hot-headed’ youths-Buhari

    President Muhammadu Buhari has expressed disappointment that responsible leaders did not warn hot-headed youths against agitating for secession of a part of the country.

    In his Independence Day broadcast on Sunday, Buhari said the leaders in the communities should have told the agitators what the country went through during the civil war over Biafra.

    “ I am very disappointed that responsible leaders of these communities do not warn their hot-headed youths what the country went through.

    “Those who were there should tell those who were not there, the consequences of such folly.

    “As a young Army Officer, I took part from the beginning to the end in our tragic civil war costing about 2m lives, resulting in fearful destruction and untold suffering. Those who are agitating for a re-run were not born by 1967 and have no idea of the horrendous consequences of the civil conflict which we went through.”

    The President noted that while calls for re-structuring are quite proper in a legitimate debate, it has let in “highly irresponsible groups to call for dismemberment of the country.”

    He said the federal government cannot and we will not allow such advocacy.

    “At all events, proper dialogue and any desired constitutional changes should take place in a rational manner, at the National and State Assemblies. These are the proper and legal fora for National debate, not some lop-sided, un-democratic body with pre-determined set of objectives.

    “Government is keeping up the momentum of dialogue with stakeholders in the Niger Delta to keep the peace. We intend to address genuine grievances of the communities.

    “Government is grateful to the responsible leadership of those communities and will pursue lasting peace in the Niger Delta.”