OPTION 1- Military Method
This involves violence and destruction of lives and properties. The International Community does not support war and violence anymore. It was used in 1967 – 1970 when Biafra declared its independence and Nigeria declared war against Biafra. It is necessary to emphasise that the Biafrans did not declare war in 1967 but only declared their independence. It was Nigeria that declared war against the Biafrans to force them back into Nigeria against their will. The effect of that war has crippled both Nigeria and Biafra up to this day. War is an ill-wind that blows no good to anyone. The Biafrans have
therefore rejected the option of war in the present dispensation.
OPTION 2 -LEGISLATIVE POWER
This is the use of Legislative Power. This would have been very easy if the Biafrans had enough representatives and enough seats in the National Assembly. Oddly enough, when we prepared the Bill for Independence or Referendum to be passed in the National Assembly, there was no Biafran activist in the National Assembly to present the Bill and move the Motion. I was informed that the people who started the Biafran Independence
Struggle about 17 years ago said that the Biafrans were not Nigerians and therefore should not be involved in the Nigerian politics and census. They did not know the difference between the Indigenous Identity of a people and their Citizenship or Nationality. Worse still, the people of the South East have only 5 States with 15 senatorial seats while the other geopolitical zones have 6 and 7 States with 18 and 21 senatorial seats respectively. The votes of 15 senators from the South East will not be enough to push through the Biafra Bill of Independence or Bill of Referendum in the National Assembly assuming that
the Senators decided to become pro-Biafra activists. We have heard about some Biafrans calling for a Referendum. It is a very good method of achieving Independence but how shall we get the Bill of Referendum passed in the National Assembly?
It appears that many people have not yet understood the extent of political
enslavement into which the Nigerian Government has put the Biafrans and their
neighbours. Let me explain it in simple terms: The National Assembly is made
up of the two Houses- The House of Representatives and the House of Senate.
There are six geopolitical zones in Nigeria- three zones in the North and three
zones in the South. Two zones in the South have 6 States each and one has 5
States being 17 States in the South. Two zones in the North have 6 States each
and one has 7 States being 19 States in the North. Every State has three
senatorial seats. Therefore the South will produce 51 senatorial seats while the
North will produce 57. Of all the members of the House of Representatives, 192
are from the North while 168 are from the entire South (South East, South-
South and South West combined). This means that in the National Assembly,
the North has 249 members while the whole South has 219 members.
Therefore, there is no way the South can push through any contentious Bill in
the National Assembly unless they can succeed in lobbying some members
from the North. How possible can the Bill of Referendum sail through? The
Scottish people had enough MPs in the House of Commons in England and
succeeded in passing the Bill of Referendum for Independence of Scotland,
even though they lost. Therefore we considered that the second option, though
very good, was not possible in the Biafran case even if all the senators and
lawmakers of the South East and South-South combined their votes in the
National Assembly. We do not discourage the group of Biafrans advocating for
a Referendum. It is possible that they have a secret to pass the Bill of
Referendum in the National Assembly. I must however advise that for a
Referendum to be binding on the Nigerian Government, it must satisfy the rule
of law that creates a social contract.
OPTION 3-JUDICIAL POWER
The third option is the use of Judicial Power and Diplomacy. It involves human
rights litigation and diplomatic negotiations both at national and international
levels. The Nigerian Law, Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990,
provides for the right of self-determination. The Nigerian Judiciary has the
power to enforce the law because it is Nigerian law. At the international level, it
was by judicial power that Nigeria was compelled by the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) to give up their claim over Bakassi. Today, the Bakassi Peninsula
is no longer a Nigerian territory but Cameroonian. Recently, when President
Mohammadu Buhari visited Cameroon and had a meeting with the Nigerians
living in Cameroon, the question was thrown to him as to the status of Bakassi.
He emphasised that Nigeria would abide by the ruling of the International Court
of Justice. In his own words, he said as follows: “Since Nigeria allowed the
case to go to Court (ICJ), and we lost, we have to abide by it”. The truth is that
nobody and no government is above the law.
The present case of Biafra v Nigeria in the Federal High Court Owerri and now moved to Abuja may end up in the International Court of Justice if the party that loses in the Nigerian
Court decides to go on appeal. By the judicial principle of stare decisis, the
section of the Nigerian Constitution which provides that Nigeria shall be
indivisible and indissoluble has been overridden by the Powers of the Judiciary
as it could not stop Bakassi from being removed from Nigeria. The Map of
Nigeria has been redrawn and reduced in size by reason of the removal of
Bakassi Peninsula from Nigeria. Just as Bakassi Peninsula was removed from
Nigeria by judicial power, it is our strong legal opinion that Biafra shall also be
removed from Nigeria by judicial power.
bring action in the ICJ on behalf of the Palestinians just as Bilie Human Rights
Initiative has been recognised by the UN with power to represent the Biafrans.
By the rule of international law, if the Biafrans do not obtain justice within the
Nigerian jurisdiction, they have the right to appeal to the International Court of