23/06/2017

PRESS RELEASE

The attention of the Customary Government of IPOB has been drawn to the rhetorics coming from Nigeria Ruling class that Nigeria is indivisible and that any call suggesting division of the Country is treasonable.

It is rather unfortunate that Nigeria Ruling Class has rejected every opportunity to redress the ‘sins’ of the past. It is even worst when they know the existence of lawsuit no  FHC/OW/CS/192/2013,a case authorized by Justice (Rtd) Eze Ozobu OFR and Dr Dozie Ikedife OON  asking the court to establish the rights of Indigenous People of Biafra for self determination.

The public should note that it is the refusal of Nigeria authority to give peace a chance that ignited the current street agitation for Biafra.The Elders of Biafra has provided a legal platform for the issue of Biafra to be resolved on the round table ,alas certain influential people around the positions of political powers  keep on feeding the innocent public  with wrong information that Nigeria remains indivisible even when they know that the quest for Biafra is not a call to divide Nigeria but to restore an already existing Nation-Biafra.

Customary Government of IPOB wants to reiterate that a peaceful restoration of Biafra will make Nigeria much stronger and united. We do not think that Nigeria will collapse or disintegrate if we leave the unholy union because the owners of Nigeria can live happily and manage their country without us. Egypt did not collapse or disintegrate when the Israelites left. India did not collapse or disintegrate when Bangladesh left. Ethiopia did not collapse or disintegrate when Eritrea left. Sudan did not collapse or disintegrate when South Sudan left last year. At the moment, UK has voted yes to leave EU and that action will not divide EU. Why are the Nigerians afraid to let the Biafrans go? If Nigeria shall disintegrate at all, it will not be caused by the Biafrans but by the wickedness and injustice in the Nigerian polity.

That the indigenous people of Biafra have an unquenchable thirst and hunger for freedom is certain. The message of Biafra has been passed down to the children from generation to generation just as the message of the captivity of Israel in Egypt was passed down from generation to generation for four hundred years. We believe that the map of Biafra deleted by the Europeans at the Berlin Conference in 1884-1885 shall be redrawn, even if it does not include all the original tribes that made up the ancient country. In the Suit No FHC/OW/CS/192/2013, the Claimants defined the indigenous people of Biafra as the inhabitants of the South-East geopolitical region of Nigeria, parts of the South-South geopolitical region of Nigeria and parts of the Middle Belt region of Nigeria. Though our enemies sowed some seeds of discord among us to divide the Eastern Region of Nigeria, we know that we are of a common ancestry.

The Customary Government of IPOB wants to reassure Biafrans across the globe that our burning desire for freedom is unquenchable and remains ‘unpurchasable’ .All Biafrans are hereby advised to remain calm and await for further directives from the De Facto Government of IPOB-Customary Government as the international lobbying continues.

Ndubuisi Anaenugwu

Director- Directorate of Information,CG-IPOB

www.ipobgovernment.org;www.bvichannel1.com

EMEKA EMEKESRI, SOLICITOR FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA, REPLIES PRESIDENT MUHAMMADU BUHARI

ON HIS STATEMENT AGAINST BIAFRA INDEPENDENCE STRUGGLE.

Your Excellency, President Muhammadu Buhari, for some days now, I did not consider it necessary to respond to a statement credited to you in the Sun Newspaper of 10 May 2016 where you were reported to have said that instead of allowing the Biafrans to go, it would be better for all the Nigerians to be drowned in the sea. I did not want to respond to you because I had thought that the Attorney-General of the Federation and all your lawyers defending Nigeria in the on-going case between Biafra and Nigeria at the Federal High Court Owerri in Suit No FHC/OW/CS/192/2013 would advise you to be careful in making some utterances which I believe, with due respect, to be careless statements from the President of a country. I am making this response because your statement is contemptuous of the proceedings in court and likely to prejudice my clients’ case. Let me reproduce the statements from the Sun Newspaper:

“President Muhammadu Buhari vowed, yesterday, in his home state of Katsina, to use all resources at his disposal to crush any agitation for the division of Nigeria. The president said the country fought a civil war which claimed over two million lives in order to be united. Buhari, who spoke at the palace of Emir of Katsina also urged Nigerians to be patient with his government as, according to him, the current hardship being experienced, may not be unconnected with efforts at laying a solid foundation for sustainable nation building. Buhari was in Katsina to attend the state’s economic and investment forum which he will officially declare open this morning. In a veiled reference to the current separatist agitation for Biafra being promoted by a group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Buhari warned it would be better for the entire country to commit mass suicide than to allow such campaign to succeed. He referred to the promoters of the agitation as “kids” who were not born during the civil war. According to Buhari, “today, Nigeria is a strong and united sovereign entity because some people laid down their lives for the country. At least two million people died during the civil war but, today, some people who were not born during the civil war are agitating for the division of the country. We will not let that happen. “For Nigeria to divide now, it is better for all of us to jump into the sea and get drowned.”

Mr President, with due respect, it appears that you have not informed Nigerians that the country is sitting on a keg of gunpowder from the legal arsenals of the Biafran lawyers battling with the Nigerian lawyers in the Federal High Court Owerri since 2012 on the issue of Self-determination of the Biafran nation. The Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Attorney-General of the Federation are the Defendants in the suit. The Defendants have changed their lawyers several times because the case is too hot for them. This is the case that terrifies the Nigerian Government as they know that it may end up in the International Court of Justice at The Hague where Cameroon defeated Nigeria and took away the Bakassi region.

The doctrine of indivisibility of Nigeria is not sacrosanct as the Bakassi region has been separated from Nigeria by judicial power! Why did the Nigerian Government not argue in the ICJ that the Nigerian Constitution said that no part of Nigeria could be removed from Nigeria? Of course, you ought to know the power of law. By law nations are created and by law nations are restructured or dissolved. It is not a child’s play. Mr President, you may assemble more lawyers to defend Nigeria in this case but I assure you that my clients will surely win the legal battle because it may not end in the Nigerian courts. We are preparing for The Hague.

The Nigerian Government knows that the ongoing suit between Biafra and Nigeria was authorised by the Supreme Council of Elders of Indigenous People of Biafra, some of whose members are older than Mr President Muhammadu Buhari and senior to him in the Army. The Nigerian Government and the hierarchy of the DSS Police know the leaders of Indigenous People of Biafra because at the commencement of the suit in 2012, we duly served all the Nigerian Authorities with the Legal Notices including the documents from the Court showing the Elders of Biafraland who are the leaders of Indigenous People of Biafra.

I am surprised at your statement to the Press that the promoters of the Biafran agitation for self-determination were “kids” who were not born during the war! Mr President, you have insulted the Elders of my clients who signed the Legal Instrument in the Federal High Court authorising Bilie Human Rights Initiative to file the action on behalf of Indigenous People of Biafra against the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Attorney-General of the Federation. Our Elders require an apology from you for referring to them as “kids” promoting the Biafran agitation. Just as we respect you as the President of Nigeria, we also expect you to respect our Elders who are the custodians of the Customary Government of Indigenous People of Biafra.

The Biafran Liberation Struggle is under the control of the Biafra Elders being led by the Supreme Council of Elders of Indigenous People of Biafra who have adopted the legal and diplomatic method of self-determination. ,

Mr President, your statement that instead of allowing Nigeria to divide it would be better for all Nigerians to drown in the sea and commit mass suicide is very serious with very serious legal and social implications. You are directly or indirectly telling the Judge to dismiss the case of my clients so that Biafra cannot be free from Nigeria. I believe that you were not joking when you made that statement. You really meant it. You wouldn’t mind drowning all the Nigerians in the sea instead of allowing the Biafrans to go.

However, I think, with due respect, that you made that statement in ignorance of what the Nigerian law says about the peoples’ inalienable right to self-determination. I do not blame you because you are not a lawyer by training. You are a soldier turned into a politician. I rather blame your lawyers who should have advised you before you made those provocative statements.

Nevertheless, I want to allay your fears about the break-up of Nigeria. We have no intention to destroy Nigeria. We respect Nigeria and the Nigerian Government. Our intention is to set Biafra free from Nigeria by the rule of law and not to destroy Nigeria just as Eritrea was set free from Ethiopia without destroying Ethiopia; just as South Sudan was set free from Sudan without destroying Sudan; just as Bangladesh and Pakistan were set free from India without destroying India. Mr President, it must not be by war. I do not really blame you and other people who think in error that self-determination must always be achieved through war and violence. There are three methods of achieving independence, namely: the military method, the political method and the judicial method. Scotland is using the political process of referendum because the British law has not provided for the right of self-determination as a legal right by an Act of Parliament but the Biafrans are using the judicial process because the Nigerian law has provided for the right of self-determination by an Act of Parliament.

Under the Nigerian law, the right to self-determination was created as a legal right by an Act of the National Assembly unlike in Britain. I do not want to bother you with the issues of law here. Whether by political process or judicial process, the exercise of the right to self-determination must not always be through war. Mr President, the next court hearing is on the 2nd June 2016 at the Federal High Court Owerri and we are expecting you and your lawyers in Court.

Your Excellency, my clients want to go and rebuild their own nation of Biafra so that the owners of Nigeria will enjoy their country very well without further disturbances from the Biafrans. Mr President, please mark my word: “As long as you hold my clients in Nigeria against their will, there will be no peace for Nigeria. I assert firmly that Biafra shall be free either within Nigeria or outside Nigeria and nobody shall be drowned in the sea as you have threatened”. My clients are yearning for freedom and they must be free. It is either freedom within Nigeria or freedom outside Nigeria. Please refer to the 8 issues for determination in Court and the 8 prayers we have made in Court. I assert with authority on this question of self-determination that Justice shall prevail in the end and the heavens shall not fall. Lest I forget: I have heard a rumour that when somebody makes a constructive criticism against your views, or holds an opinion contrary to yours, you would unleash the DSS policemen against the person like attack dogs. Is it true, Mr President? Please, I advise you to be properly guided with wisdom and understanding in your utterances and actions.

Emeka Emekesri, Esq.
Solicitor for Indigenous People of Biafra
Suit No FHC/OW/CS/192/2013
Federal High Court Owerri

The Biafra spirit is alive today as much as it was 50 years ago when, on May 30, 1967, the governor of the Eastern Region, Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, declared the territories under his control independent of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This separatist republic was known as the Republic of Biafra. Despite the collapse of the separatist republic in 1970, the agitation for the actualisation of the sovereign state of Biafra has continued peacefully, first with the idea being whispered and discussed in hushed tones among the masses of the Igbo heartland states in the South East geo-political zone, while the elite remained aloof and assumed a posture of indifference that could be taken as scorn for the idea of secession. The attitude of the elite of the Igbo towards the Biafra agitation was because successive governments since the end of hostilities in 1970 have extended a token of patronage to them as a step towards inclusiveness in government and consequent integration into the socio-economic equation of the Nigerian federation; a gesture the very hard-working and industrious people of the South East took full advantage of and prospered tremendously. For example, following the return to civil rule in 1979, the rest of the Nigerian nation ceded the vice presidency to the East in the person of Dr. Alex Ekwueme. In 1985, another Igbo man, Ebitu Ukiwe, was appointed as the Chief of General Staff and second-in-command in the military presidency of Ibrahim Babangida. Between 1999 and 2007, Igbo sons and daughters played leading roles in the kitchen cabinet, economic management team and National Security Council of the Olusegun Obasanjo administration. The Umar Musa Yar’Adua administration in 2009 appointed Ogbonna Onovo as the first Igbo IGP in the history of Nigeria.
However, all of these have changed in the last two years. For a close and objective observer of events in Nigeria since the beginning of the Muhammadu Buhari administration, it is manifestly clear that the Igbo ethnic group has never been this marginalised in the history of Nigeria. The victorious President Buhari has largely treated the Igbo as a conquered people. He has excluded them from his kitchen cabinet and National Security Council. These have further exacerbated the structural marginalisation of the Igbo, who have the least number of states and local governments in Nigeria, which makes them work hardest for the lowest reward. The Buhari administration appears to be punishing the whole South East for making a democratic choice against him. This heightened marginalisation of the Igbo has negatively affected the political elite in an unprecedented manner, leading to a drastic reduction in their already meagre privileges of state patronage. Today, the leading elite and masses of the Igbo have been passed through the crucible of deprivation by the Buhari administration and have become pressured into one. To every Igbo man, Biafra is utopia; the final solution to their problems of restricted development and prosperity. This new wave of sentiment is responsible for the near total compliance with the sit-at-home order issued by MASSOB to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the declaration of the Republic of Biafra.
There is no consensus of opinion among historians as to the real cause of the Civil War. However, a close look at some events before, during and after the war may reveal some leads into resolving the Biafra question. Among the various ethnic groups that formed amalgamated Nigeria, only the Igbo appears to have embraced the concept of the realities of the new modern state. The predominantly Muslim Hausa-Fulani of the north were very pessimistic about the prospect of a union in which they would co-habit with “a people that are not a people’’. To make matters worse, the new standard of participation in state affairs would be the acquisition of Western education, an area in which they were clearly disadvantaged because of the almost one century gap between the introduction of education by Christian missionaries to the southern part of the union and the period of the establishment of colonial government schools in the North. The fear of domination by the Christian South in the event of an independent Nigeria was real in the North. This fear was further heightened by the arrogance of education exhibited by some southern elite. Northerners were often ridiculed on account of their perceived backwardness. This unfortunate scenario was as a result of the fact that the basis of Nigeria’s political process was defined around ethno-geographic parameters. The education of the southern elite didn’t transform them from the comfort zones of their ethnic niche to broad-minded nationalists. As expected of patriots, rather than ridiculing their fellow countrymen in the northern region for their educational backwardness, their enlightenment should have made them broad-minded  and sympathetic enough to view the problems of the North as a Nigerian problem and not a regional one, requiring all hands on deck. The North’s reaction was to insist on a rigid form of regional federal structure and leveraged on its large size in terms of land mass and population to negotiate a favourable political deal that guaranteed steady development at its own pace.
Consequently, the ethnic regional structure of the first republic gave rise to a conflict of indigenship of regions and citizenship of the country. Having embraced the concept of a united modern Nigeria wholeheartedly, largely because the pre-colonial political culture of the Igbo reflected the modern practices of democracy and consensus building, while their traditional economy was devoid of feudalist advantages but hinged on hard work and merit, they moved freely around the evolving nation of Nigeria and made a home out of every part. However, their success attracted envy and suspicion in their host communities outside the Eastern Region. The young middle cadre military officers of mostly Igbo origin that staged the January 1966 coup were clearly unable to reconcile the realities of a strong regional federation and their ideals of nationalism and military service to fatherland. It was the conflict of regional indigeneship and Nigerian citizenship that boiled over into the bloody chain reactions of the coup, counter-coup and civil war between 1966 and 1970.
The lesson not learnt from the war is the need to resolve the various conflicts of interests militating against the transformation of Nigeria into a truly united, egalitarian and prosperous nation. The Biafran war brought to the fore the question of the right and privileges of a Nigerian citizen living outside his region of origin. The leaders of the first republic and those after them failed to resolve this question satisfactorily. After the regions, states were also created along ethno-geographic fault lines rather than on economically pragmatic settlement patterns that took into consideration the preservation of Nigeria’s unity in diversity. In resolving this question, the federating units should become organic and move away from being rigid ethno-geographic structures to flexible entities that allow for the proper assimilation and integration of any citizen of Nigeria who, for political, cultural and economic reasons, choses to reside in a federating unit outside his place of origin. The acceptance, integration and assimilation of the Igbo in all parts of Nigeria will go a long way in resolving this crisis. If their energy and skills are accommodated by Nigerians, it will be a source of prosperity for any community where they settle. The industrious enterprise of the Igbo should not be scorned but appreciated and considered worthy of emulation.
The danger posed to the existence of the Nigerian nation by a passive but defiant war being waged between ‘Biafra’ and Nigeria is real. The first and immediate step at resolving this impasse is for the current administration to reconstitute the relevant organs of government to fully include the South East, particularly the National Security Council. Furthermore, the rest of Nigeria should reach a consensus aimed at making the otherwise cumbersome creation of states and local government smooth and easy to bring the South East at par with the rest of the country. Finally, political leaders across the geo-political zones in a bipartisan manner should set a timeline for the emergence of a Nigerian President of Igbo extraction.

As Acting President Yemi Osinbajo, former President Olusegun Obasanjo, Ohanaeze President-General, Chief Nnia Nwodo and a host of others spoke about Biafra, at an event commemorating the declaration of the failed Eastern Nigerian republic, I could not help but wonder what would have become of the Federal Republic of Biafra by now had it succeeded. Would Biafra have been a successful country and among nations to be reckoned with in the world? Would Biafra have been a struggling republic, like Nigeria, which is yet to attain its potentiality? Would Biafra have been worth the trouble and blood of the Igbo and South southerners, who believed in it and fought for it?
Well, one is not God, who knows everything and, therefore, could say what would have become of Biafra, as a country. However, if prevailing indices are anything to go by, perhaps, Biafra, had it succeeded, could have been a country, all things being equal, which would have advanced, in socio-economic development. Yes, a country at war, which was able to refine petroleum products, with a decrepit infrastructure, a nation at war, which was able to develop a bomb (Ogbunigwe), fabricate aircraft (Biafran Mosquito and others), armoured tank, warship and others, could have, in time of peace, done much more. Yes, a country at war, which fought for three years, with what could pass for bare hands, against a Nigeria that had the support of other nations, perhaps, could not have been a pushover.  Indeed, a nation with enterprising citizens, who go out and make success in their environment could also have attained greatness or on the verge of it. However, for a Biafra, whose people are mobile and love to go to other places to conquer, is it possible that all Igbo investments now spread across Nigeria, in their trillions of dollars, could have been domiciled in the Biafran enclave and, therefore, ensures the development of the country? This is a food for thought.
Fifty years ago, then Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, military governor of Eastern Nigeria, after consultation with the people, had declared Biafra. Today, Biafra still resonates among the majority of those in its territory then. Has anybody wondered why this is so? I am persuaded that Biafra is still an issue because the fundamental issues Ojukwu raised, in declaring the country, are yet to be addressed. They bother on security, injustice and inequality.
For the avoidance of doubt, Ojukwu had stated on May 30, 1967: “Fellow countrymen and women, you, the people of Eastern Nigeria: Conscious of the supreme authority of Almighty God over all mankind, of your duty to yourselves and prosperity; Aware that you can no longer be protected in your lives and in your property by any government based outside Eastern Nigeria; Believing that you are born free and have certain inalienable rights, which can best be preserved by yourselves; Unwilling to be unfree partners in any association of a political or economic  nature;  Rejecting the authority of any person or persons other than the Military  Government of Eastern Nigeria to make any imposition of whatever kind or nature upon you; Determined to dissolve all political and other ties between you and the former  Federal Republic of Nigeria; Prepared to enter into such association, treaty or  alliance with any sovereign state within the former Federal Republic of Nigeria  and elsewhere on such terms and conditions, as best to subserve your common good; Affirming your trust and confidence in me; Having mandated me to proclaim on your behalf, and in your name the Eastern Nigeria be a sovereign independent Republic. Now, Therefore I, Lieutenant-Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, Military Governor of Eastern Nigeria, by virtue of the authority, and pursuant to the principles recited above, do hereby solemnly proclaim that the territory and region known as and called Eastern Nigeria together with her continental shelf and territorial waters shall henceforth be an independent sovereign state of the name and title of The Republic of Biafra.”
Today, Igbo still feel thus:  “Aware that you can no longer be protected in your lives and in your property by any government based outside Eastern Nigeria,” as, at every provocation and in matters they are not even involved, they are killed and their property destroyed, as it happens often in the North.  Today, Igbo are still  feeling this way: “Unwilling to be unfree partners in any association of a political or economic  nature,”  as they face tough times where they live and ply their trade, owing to conscious and unconscious efforts by people, who either do not like them or afraid of them. Today, Igbo strongly feels thus:  “Believing that you are born free and have certain inalienable rights, which can best be preserved by yourselves,” as they go places and, out of share hard work, vision and drive, conquer their environment and make success of it, no matter the odds.
This means that nothing much has changed from what they were in the days leading to the Civil War. However, I do appreciate Osinbajo’s approach to the whole matter. I do commend his thoughts about Biafra. I do appreciate his understanding that equity and justice are the things that provoke agitations. I do commend his handling of the recent sit-at-home order called by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), which paralysed the South East and some parts of South South, as there was no report of extra-judicial killing by security agents. These are what were missing before. Now, where President Muhammadu Buhari used threat and force, Osinbajo used diplomacy and reason. Where President Buhari talked down on the people, Osinbajo raised their hopes, by saying that there was more to achieve together.
Yes, despite the fact that Biafra agitation continues, the tension has come down. The difference is the approach of the man at the helm of affairs. Some people accused President Buhari of fanning the embers of Biafra. Of course, this is true. He chose every talking opportunity to speak about Biafra in the most uncharitable and condescending manner. His government’s attitude towards Igbo is, to say the least, unfavourable, as seen in appointments and location of projects.
Taking all these together, there is an urgent need for a change of attitude by other Nigerians, as a people and government, as institution, towards the Igbo. Igbo are not asking for anything special, other than justice, fairness and equity. The Igbo are ready to compete on a level playing field. The Igbo have proved to be the most patriotic Nigerians, as they are, mostly, Nigerians, who go to other parts of the country and call it home, establishing business and building houses. Whereas most other Nigerians put their investments in their domain, Igbo move out, make effort, succeed and dig in. This may be foolishness, but it shows their belief in one nation, where love and fairness reign.
The Federal Government and indeed, other Nigerians ought to worry that IPOB and the Movement for the Actualisation of Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) asked the “Biafra” to stay indoors on May 30 and they did, without compulsion. They should be worried enough, to begin to do something that would make the Igbo, whether they were born before 1967 or not, to stop dreaming of Biafra, but have a sense of belonging in a country, where fate has made them part of. This should ginger them to action, to build an egalitarian society were there are no slaves and freeborn.
For the Biafra agitators, they should decide whether they want propaganda or out to cause a change. Inasmuch as I admire the likes of Ralph Uwazuruike and Nnamdi Kanu, who have the impetus to talk about Biafra and mobilise for it, I believe they should define what they are really up to. Now, for instance, is Kanu a political leader or religious leader? I heard that people now bow for him, as a Judaism adherent. What is this for? Kanu should know that if he makes Biafra a religious matter, tied round Judaism, he would be alienating some people, who may be Christians, Muslims or non-believers but believe in his cause. As someone said, “Igbo are Igbo”, while “Jews are Jews.” God had already created the Igbo and given them that special gift to excel. They have their identity. It is for them to use the God-given potentiality positively, purposely and tactfully. With this, they cannot be ignored, in Nigeria, or anywhere they find themselves. Never!

Source: daily Sun