What will now become of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)? Will it go into extinction? These are some of the questions being asked by watchers following the labelling of the group as a terrorist organisation by the military. Southeast governors also proscribed the group. Associate Editor, Sam Egburonu, examines what it takes to be a terrorist group and traces how the pro-Biafran agitation, which began as a non-violent struggle, has come to assume such a frightening dimension.
IN the last few weeks, especially since it came up with a special training campaign in the South-East Operation Dance of the Python, informed observers, within and outside the zone, had discerned military’s resolve to clamp down on the Nnamdi Kanu-led Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). So, when the tanks rolled in for the beginning of the operation, even common citizens in the streets, feared that the worst may happen. But what they probably failed to envisage was the prospect of declaring the pro-Biafran agitation organisation a terrorist group.
That turned out to be the first official action of the military high command before the actual commencement of the dance. On Friday, September 15, 2017, the Defence Headquarters (DHQ), in a statement in Abuja, declared IPOB a terrorist group, accusing the pro-Biafran group of “posing security challenge to the country by clandestinely and actively terrorizing the general public.”
Since then, the federal government’s efforts to either curtail or stop the activities of IPOB and other pro-Biafran agitation organisations and the general concept of pro-Biafran agitation and what it means for Ndigbo seem to have changed dramatically as some observers and the civil populace express fear at the feared consequences of the new developments. As a result, the elite, the intellectuals and political leaders in the country have reacted passionately, either for or against the latest developments. While some argue that the military lacked the competence in law to declare a group a terrorist group and that the group has not done anything to be so branded, others countered that some of the actions of the group are enough to be declared as a terrorist group.
Between that Friday and today however, most concerned patriots have advised all to be more cautious in handling the delicate situation and to embrace dialogue instead of confrontation and war.
Why military declared IPOB a terrorist group
While declaring IPOB a terrorist organisation, the Defence Headquarters had, in a statement, accused the group of engaging “in acts of terrorism.”
Urging parents to dissuade their wards from joining IPOB, Major-General John Enenche, the Director, Defence Information (DDI), who signed the statement, spoke of the determination of the Armed Forces to confront “all security challenges facing the country.”
He said: “After due professional analysis and recent developments, it has become expedient to notify the general public that the claim by IPOB actors that the organisation is non-violent is not true.
“Hence the need to bring to public awareness the true and current state of IPOB.
“In this regard, some of their actions, clandestinely and actively, that have been terrorising the general public include: The formation of a Biafra Secret Service, claimed formation of Biafra National Guard, unauthorised blocking of public access roads and extortion of money from innocent civilians at illegal road blocks.
“Militant possession and use of weapons (stones, molotov cocktails, machetes and broken bottles, among others) on a military patrol on Sept. 10, 2017.
“Physical confrontation of troops by Nnamdi Kanu and other IPOB actors at a check point on Sept. 11, 2017 and also attempt to snatch their rifles.
“Attack by IPOB members on a military check point on Sept. 12, 2017, at Isialangwa, where one IPOB actor attempted to snatch a female soldier’s rifle.” “From the foregoing, the Armed Forces of Nigeria wish to confirm to the general public that IPOB, from all intent, plan and purpose as analysed, is a militant terrorist organisation.”
The Nnamdi Kanu-led IPOB was, until recently, a relatively passive organisation.
In the last one year, however, it has become confrontational with the authorities, demanding the creation of an independent state of Biafra.
It is also threatening to make the November 18 governorship election in Anambra State impossible.
What is a terrorist organisation?
Notwithstanding the reasons advanced by the Defence Headquarters for the declaration, some experts have openly disagreed on whether or not IPOB activities qualify it to be a terrorist organisation. A terrorist organisation has been defined as “a political movement that uses terror as a weapon to achieve its goals.” According to WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection, terrorist act refers to “the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.”
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, however states that “There is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism.[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon and legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged.[3] In the United States of America, for example, Terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”
A textbook definition of terrorism is “the use of violence or threat of violence especially against civilians in the pursuit of political aims, religious, or ideological change.”
Also according to Wikipedia, “it is both mala prohibita (i.e., crime that is made illegal by legislation) and mala in se (i.e., crime that is inherently immoral or wrong).”
It also pointed out that since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has come up with the following political description of terrorism: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.”
Bearing this in mind and taking cognisance of the provisions of the law in Nigeria, legal experts have openly disagreed over this week’s declaration of IPOB as a terrorist group.
Of course, the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2013 defines a terrorist as “a person who knowingly does, attempts or threatens to do an act preparatory to or in furtherance of an act of terrorism….”
It defines acts of terrorism as “an act which is deliberately done with malice, aforethought and which may seriously harm or damage a country or an international organisation.”
Part 1 of the Act defines acts of terrorism as those which: “(i) unduly compel a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; (ii) seriously intimidate a population; (iii) seriously destabilise or destroy the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation; or (iv) otherwise influence such government or international organisation by intimidation or coercion.”
Others under subsection (c) include an act “that involves or causes, as the case may be, an attack upon a person’s life which may cause serious bodily harm or death.”
Such acts include: “(ii) kidnapping of a person; (iii) destruction to a government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property, likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss.”
Under Sub-Section (3), they also include: “An act which disrupts a service but is committed in pursuance of a protest.”
Given these clear legal provisions and the dictionary meanings of terrorism, some lawyers and informed stakeholders have expressed differing views on whether the Defence Headquarters was right to categorise IPOB as a terrorist organisation.
One of the reasons cited by many law experts for taking exception to the Defence Headquarters action is the view that the relevant Act provides that only a judge, based on an application by the Attorney-General of the Federation, the National Security Adviser or the Inspector General of Police on the approval of the President, can declare an organisation a terrorist group.
The section (2) says: “An order made under sub-section (1) of this section shall be published in the official gazette, in two national newspapers and at such other places as the judge in Chambers may determine.”
Most opponents of Defence Headquarters’ declaration argued that the organ of government was not the right organ to make such a declaration.
This alleged flaw notwithstanding, some legal experts said during the week that some of the acts reportedly perpetrated by IPOB members may fall within the definition of acts of terrorism.
In our earlier report yesterday, The Nation quoted Mallam Yusuf Ali (SAN) as saying the military must have acted on information that is not known to the public in declaring IPOB a terrorist organisation.
“I think the Army knows exactly why it made the declaration. They have better facts than the rest of us. So, we must give them the benefit of the doubt, that they know what they’re doing and that they have better facts than us,” he said.
He, however, advised that the use of dialogue in resolving the issues should not be ruled out rather than declaring “war” against IPOB.
“I think we should learn lessons in this country. Anybody who has seen war or the effects of war as happened to us in the civil war and the various wars being fought all over the world will not promote war. Only those who don’t value human life will.
“I think there are sufficient mechanisms in our laws to peacefully express and resolve whatever disagreements we have.
“Resort to violence or declarations that are unconstitutional must be discouraged. All of us must obey the law of the land.
“I think the matter is getting a bit out of hand, with reports of buses being stopped and passengers being asked which ethnic group they’re from to either be molested or killed.
“We should stop all this madness. Whatever it will take us to ensure there is sanctity of life, that our country remains one, we should do it.
“There are no disagreements we have that we cannot come to a table to talk about. None,” he said.
We also quoted another SAN, Mr. Ahmed Raji, as insisting that before any group could be declared a terrorist organisation, certain conditions must be met.
“I don’t think under the anti-terrorism law, the army headquarters is the appropriate organ to declare a body a terrorist organisation.
“Before a body is declared a terrorist organisation, there are stages to follow under the Act. There should be a court order to that effect and then it’ll be gazetted and published. Until all these steps are duly followed, it may not hold water in law.
But Lucas Daramola, also a SAN, said if the military’s claims can be proved, then IPOB would find it difficult to shake off a terrorism tag.
He said: “That depends on the veracity of the claim. If IPOB truly engaged in those actions you listed, nobody can fault the classification. Every act of insurrection against the state can be so classified.”
Some other Senior Advocates of Nigeria like Seyi Sowemimo (SAN) and Mike Ozekhome (SAN), who spoke on the declaration, doubted its necessity. To Sowemimo: “I have some difficulty in classifying them as a terrorist organisation because you could also call this a political struggle, although it’s not supposed to be an armed struggle. There is a tinge of criminal offence associated with it.
“But I don’t think the classification can lead to a solution for the problem. I think the matter is one that is best solved through dialogue than through this type of classification. I think the classification will only escalate the tension in the country.
“Those that have committed offences and are members of IPOB should be charged to court under the appropriate law, but classifying the organisation as a terrorist one is not helpful.”
Mike Ozekhome (SAN) also faulted the military’s terrorism tag. He said, “I do not believe the instances cited by the Defence Headquarters justify declaring IPOB a terrorist organisation. The last time I checked, I can’t remember any of such organisations operating in the country being declared terrorist organisations.”
Reacting to the development, Evangelist Elliot Ugochukwu-Uko, the Secretary, Eastern Consultative Assembly (ECA) and Founder of Igbo Youths Movement, described it as the ‘Blood on the Niger, Season 2.” In a statement he made available to The Nation yesterday, Ugochukwu-Uko lamented that the attack would scuttle an on-going peace process between IPOB and the government. “The deliberate decision to roll in military equipment into the South East and provoke crisis is also designed towards scuttling the peace process between the IPOB and the government, led by Prof Ben Nwabueze. Some people are not comfortable with that because they believe it could lead to restructuring Nigeria which they resent intensely. Python Dance was aimed at scuttling the IPOB/government dialogue begun on 30th of August, 2017.
“The pronouncement that the IPOB is a terrorist organisation and thereby proscribed are all designed and choreographed to justify the discreetly agreed agenda to crush the agitation by military might in order to sustain the 1999 military constitution and the current unjust status quo, thereby postponing the restructuring of Nigeria for as long as they can.
“Another reason for proscribing the IPOB and declaring them as terrorists is to reassure the South East political leaders that their re-election is no longer under threat, as the IPOB constituted a tsunami that had successfully mobilised the downtrodden masses against the inept political class that had compromised the future of their people through the format through which they climbed into political offices.
He also said “The unjust 1999 military constitution, and unfair unitary structure it designed, is at the root of the crisis bedeviling Nigeria. Every bullet shot at Umuahia or Aba this week, was aimed at sustaining this status quo and resisting restructuring. The ongoing military action is not targeted at Kanu and IPOB but, at the restructuring breeze blowing across Nigeria and put an end to it. They know it is impossible to proscribe a movement that lives in the hearts and souls of millions.
“In all these, every effort has been made by the government to avoid discussing the issues that led to the agitation because discussing it will quickly lead to restructuring Nigeria which they don’t want to happen. They rather chose to divert attention from the injustices,” he said.
Solution
While governors from the zone have been meeting with leaders of the various stakeholders, the federal government, through Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, directed the Inspector-General of Police, Ibrahim Idris, to deploy policemen nationwide, following the crisis.
Besides such security actions, concerned leaders and elders, including former President Olusegun Obasanjo, have called on President Muhammadu Buhari-led government to dialogue, while legal experts said such dialogue may not stop the government from prosecuting any individual found to have committed a crime against the state. The tension mounts as Nigerians study the steps of the Python dancers.
