Igbo leaders, women all dressed up In their traditional attires in support as Nnamdi Kanu goes to court (photos)
Everybody is now calling for his unconditional release. Biafra restoration is around the corner.
The hardcore IPOB Lawyers Biafrans in court today 6/4/2017.
The hardcore IPOB Lawyers Biafrans in court today 6/4/2017.
Whenhe was Quoting and quoting the Nigeria Constitution,there was silence in the Law court:Meaning he was winning,till The evil Judge
TEACHING JUSTICE BINTA NYAKO: WHY SHARIA LAW CANNOT BE USED AGAINST NNAMDI KANU.....
The debate is raging everywhere; the matter is complicated but obvious, common law came to an end and the Nigerian civil constitution came to an end. The trial judged looked to her left and to her right, the trial seems to have come to an end and Nnamdi Kanu has won every argument not to be tried in any form of secrecy. But due to the trial Judge is poised to see to the will of the sick President of Nigeria who said in his maiden media chat that Nnamdi Kanu committed atrocious crimes and will never allow the ruling of competent Court or allow Kanu to go free. She suddenly imported Sharia law and disclosed that Kanu’s trial shall be on principles of Sharia law.
The debate is raging everywhere; the matter is complicated but obvious, common law came to an end and the Nigerian civil constitution came to an end. The trial judged looked to her left and to her right, the trial seems to have come to an end and Nnamdi Kanu has won every argument not to be tried in any form of secrecy. But due to the trial Judge is poised to see to the will of the sick President of Nigeria who said in his maiden media chat that Nnamdi Kanu committed atrocious crimes and will never allow the ruling of competent Court or allow Kanu to go free. She suddenly imported Sharia law and disclosed that Kanu’s trial shall be on principles of Sharia law.
However; the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra and the entire people of Biafra have notably said there won’t be any form of secret trial or trial based on principles of Sharia law which gives credence to secret trial. This poses a bleak future to the trial of Nnamdi Kanu; with Facebook profile picture of all Biafran activists condemning or rejecting secret trial and Sharia law, there is high possibility that the trial of Nnamdi Kanu has come to an abrupt end. In a trial; justice is dispensed and not only dispensed but obviously dispensed but when it is not dispensed obviously, the law gave opportunity to stall it.
Justice Binta Nyako is judging with her emotions and trying everything possible to save the heads of her corrupt family facing criminal trial. By serving the head of Nnamdi Kanu to the government of the day; the heads of his corrupt family shall be spared. Continuously reminding the defense counsel that the Court belongs to her and she has right to rob her stool on their faces. Continuously ruling on the plane of injustice and disregarding justice at a high proportion. These have stalled or prevented fluent trial of the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra. In an effort to force justice on the Court; the defense counsel is exploring and browsing deeply. This will at the end show the corrupt nature of the trial Judge and entire Nigerian judiciary because nothing short of justice will be done.
The trial Judge must be very careful in exercising her full ownership of the Court to avoid the defense counsel and the accused leaving the Court for her. Injustice cannot be obviously meted on a high profile litigant like Nnamdi Kanu without consequences. I am already imagining a situation the defense counsel would decide not to go on with the case due to the level of injustice meted out on the litigant. While the trial Judge has not given a backing to the importation of Sharia law; I have decided to join the debate on why Sharia law cannot be used against Nnamdi Kanu.
In my previous article on the issue of Sharia law; I defined this law as a religious law strictly meant for Muslims and accessible in Islamic States or Islamic country. This law has nothing to do with people of other faith but can only be effective on people of other faith when the people are resident or citizens of Islamic country Sharia law is accessible. This brings us to Nigeria and Sharia law; Nigeria is constitutionally a secular country which makes religious law highly selective, in the sense that it can apply here and here but cannot apply there and there. The secular nature of Nigeria ensures that Sharia law has its boundaries and limitations. Nigeria is not constitutionally an Islamic country making Sharia law a discretional or territorial thing.
Meanwhile; few people have argued that Sharia law is contained in Nigeria constitution and that at the expense of full capacity of Nigerian constitution, that Sharia law can be given green light. This is the major point of Sharia law proponents; they posit that the 1999 constitution gave room for Sharia law. This is a complete misconception; Nigeria as a secular country gives hand for the accommodation of all faith. Christianity has no Christian law or Christian Court, paganism has no law or pagan Court but Islam has Islamic law and Islamic Court hence the constitution in its secular benevolence gave Islam hand of accommodation. This does not imply that for being in the constitution that it applies to everybody or everywhere. It is strictly applied to Muslims alone and giving the Faith a constitutional backing to exercise its freedom of worship. This should not in any way be misconceived into a standard for everybody. Sharia law in the constitution is to give those that practice it a go-ahead order but never to be used against other faith.
The territorial factor is another thing that plays against the use of Sharia law. Before the inclusion of Sharia law in the constitution, a particular people were meant for that. Sharia law is applicable to Muslims and in Northern Nigeria and offences punishable under Sharia law is committed in the indigenous territory of Muslims. There is no legal backing that a purported offence committed in London or Biafra land is tried on principles of Sharia law, which is not only an act of madness but a clear indication that the constitution of such country is highly powerless. That the Court belongs to Justice Binta doesn’t give her the power to mess around and corruptly or unjustly try a litigant. By virtue of Nnamdi Kanu not being a citizen of any Islamic territory and the trumped up charges not presumably committed in Sharia territory, there is no way Sharia law principle which gives credence to secret trial is possible.
Religious factor is very crucial and opposes the principles of Sharia law; there is no gainsaying that by means of forcing principles of Sharia law on Nnamdi Kanu, you are practically forcing Islam on him. That can be described as another format of Islamization; the trial Judge is nothing short of ISIS that kill to force people to the way of Sharia law. Nnamdi Kanu as a Christian has nothing to do with Sharia law and by virtue of Nigeria being a secular country; the constitution prohibits forcing the principles of other religion on another believer. There is freedom of belief which this trial based on Sharia principle negates and for having outlined these factors, the trial Judge should drop her military approach to the trial of Nnamdi Kanu. To be continued……..
Nigeria will not have peace as they continue holding innocent human being Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. The case of killing of Biafrans will come Letter we will never forgeth those that pay ther Life for Biafra.
Hardcore Biafran Joseph Afokwalam wrote this in response to a Yoruba One Nigerianist who outlined 6 reasons why independent Biafra will be a disaster
Dear Omotayo Yusuf, I like your choice of words, "may likely happen". Permit me to also give a counter narrative why some of these six things may likely not happen and how they can be taken care of if they happen.
KANU AS PRESIDENT
I want to assure you that Dr Nnamdi Kanu is a highly educated man. If you hear him speak and listen to some of the STRESS interviews he granted you will know that he is not only educated but intelligent as well. He is also a very charismatic leader, nobody in the history of Nigeria has been able to bring so much people out on the streets like this man. As you can see many people are willing and ready to die for this man. Nobody in the history of the Igbo race has been able to bring the Igbos together like this man and he is the only man that has been able to close the gap between SS and SE created by Hausa Fulani Yoruba media like you are trying to prop up in your article. His IPOB is still intact despite billions of dollars earmarked by the government to create problems by infiltrating their ranks. I am very sure you know all these, you are just feigning ignorance. Moreover Kanu has said it time without number that as soon as Biafra is restored, his job is done and he will retire to his home.
INTERNAL STRIFE
There is no society without internal strife. We are different individuals as such want different things, see things differently and have different ways to solve problems which is why there are always strife even in our different homes. But the strife we will have can never be compared with what we are passing through in Nigeria. Do you remember the 1966 coup? A coup that was carried out by soldiers of different ethnic groups was tagged an Igbo coup, Igbo soldiers were killed. Do you remember the May and October 1966 pogroms in which more than 100,000 Igbos were killed? Can you remember how many times Igbos were killed in the North for no just cause? Like the cartoon of prophet Mohammed in Denmark and so on, or the numerous religious uprisings that targets mainly Igbos. Or the 2011 election riot that killed Igbo youth corpers. Remember Igbos here refer to people from old eastern region because when the killing starts, we are all Igbo but when you people want our resources you will start talking about minorities as if there are no minorities in the North.
The difference you see among different Biafran groups is because we know that the government is sponsoring some of them to destabilize us. Remember gowon said that if he had known he wouldn't have gone to war, he would have sponsored an Igbo man to counter Ojukwu. That is part of the strategy of this government against this Biafra agitation. I must tell you that IPOB, MASSOB under Uchenna Madu and LNC are not against each other.
There are IPOB families in Ebonyi state so they are part of the agitation. Even if they are not part of it, they will join when Biafra comes.
CORRUPT ION
Corruption is everywhere, you must have seen what happened in Democrats National Convention in the US, how the DNC who are supposed to be neutral worked against Sanders, you also must have seen the way Clinton investigations were carried out. So corruption is everywhere but it is worst in Africa. Biafra may not be an exemption but the difference is that the situation where every tribe will fight for their tribes man even if he is corrupt will not exist. Present political elites may not be the leaders because this agitation is a grassroots thing and I don't see them coming to hijack it. They know this, that is why majority of them are not supporting the agitation. The agitation by the masses means that a vote of no confidence has been passed on the political elites. Even if they find themselves in power, they will know that they are answerable to the masses who fought for the freedom.
SOUTH SOUTH
Like we have been saying, there is nothing like south south in the cardinal points, it is your creation just to divide us. Are there no minorities in the North? Why was there no minority commission in the North or West? Are all in the present day western Nigeria Yorubas? If not because you people have ulterior motive, where is that commission needed, is it in the eastern region that never had a history of war or in the North and West where there were wars of conquest. Your article clearly shows that you are trying to instigate that division your people propagated during and after the war but unfortunately for you, we are now wiser. We know who is dominating who now, we know who wants the oil because we know who has 83% and 15% of the oil blocks. We know who said that Bayelsa oil belong to them and who is claiming ownership of the oil in Bayelsa because of their large land mass. All the same, it will be good to note that Biafra is never by force. If the so called SS want to stay with Nigeria or want their own nation, Biafrans will never force them. Igbo speaking Biafrans are not landlocked as you claim. You mentioned Ndoki port, you forgot that there is a port in Onitsha, you forgot Oguta, Omambala river and many other rivers that can be dredged and developed if need be. You people have abandoned the "we feed you because your land is not fertile" mantra because the hardship in the country now has really shown who is feeding who.
LAGOS
This is another story that is making us believe that Yorubas are afraid of restoration of Biafra. Why must all Biafrans come home when Biafra is restored? Why are there Yorubas in the UK, US and other countries? Three days ago, Kenya clamped down on Nigerians in Kenya and arrested about 40 Nigerians, more than 70% are Yorubas. Why are they not in their country Nigeria? Are there no Nigerians with properties outside Nigeria? My dear brother anybody can live and own properties anywhere in the world. That is the argument you are using to scare our brothers that made some of them afraid of Biafra restoration. Unfortunately for you, times have changed, gone are those days when you have monopoly of the media where you spew all sorts of lies. We now can counter them and put the record straight.
YORUBA
Yes Yorubas are our natural allies because we are both from the south. We have problems because of mistrust that exists amongst us to the advantage of the north. It is unfortunate the Yorubas don't know they are also marginalized, just that the east are more marginalized than they are. I don't know if any Yoruba saw sir Ahmadu Bello's speech that was published on the Parrot newspaper of 12th October 1960. Let me just quote a part of it, "The new nation Nigeria should be an estate of our grandfather Usman Danfodio. We must ruthlessly prevent a change of power, we will use the minorities of the north as willing tools and the south as conquered territory and never allow them rule over us or allow them control over their future". He did not say East as conquered territory, he said South. It is unfortunate that the west think they are ok forgetting that these people not only want to perpetually rule us but do not want us to control our future.
Finally, I will like to tell all Nigerians that Biafra is not a call for war but a call for us to go back to how we were before the British joined us together for their selfish economic interest. We have lived together for more than hundred years and anybody who wants to tell himself the truth will concede that it has not worked. We hate each other, we are different. We have different value system, different religion, different food, different clothes, different languages and so on. Instead of us to wait till war separate us, it is better for us to separate in peace so that we can be happy neighbours where healthy rivalry will help each nation to be better while helping each other to be the best we can.
What do you think?
Dear Omotayo Yusuf, I like your choice of words, "may likely happen". Permit me to also give a counter narrative why some of these six things may likely not happen and how they can be taken care of if they happen.
KANU AS PRESIDENT
I want to assure you that Dr Nnamdi Kanu is a highly educated man. If you hear him speak and listen to some of the STRESS interviews he granted you will know that he is not only educated but intelligent as well. He is also a very charismatic leader, nobody in the history of Nigeria has been able to bring so much people out on the streets like this man. As you can see many people are willing and ready to die for this man. Nobody in the history of the Igbo race has been able to bring the Igbos together like this man and he is the only man that has been able to close the gap between SS and SE created by Hausa Fulani Yoruba media like you are trying to prop up in your article. His IPOB is still intact despite billions of dollars earmarked by the government to create problems by infiltrating their ranks. I am very sure you know all these, you are just feigning ignorance. Moreover Kanu has said it time without number that as soon as Biafra is restored, his job is done and he will retire to his home.
INTERNAL STRIFE
There is no society without internal strife. We are different individuals as such want different things, see things differently and have different ways to solve problems which is why there are always strife even in our different homes. But the strife we will have can never be compared with what we are passing through in Nigeria. Do you remember the 1966 coup? A coup that was carried out by soldiers of different ethnic groups was tagged an Igbo coup, Igbo soldiers were killed. Do you remember the May and October 1966 pogroms in which more than 100,000 Igbos were killed? Can you remember how many times Igbos were killed in the North for no just cause? Like the cartoon of prophet Mohammed in Denmark and so on, or the numerous religious uprisings that targets mainly Igbos. Or the 2011 election riot that killed Igbo youth corpers. Remember Igbos here refer to people from old eastern region because when the killing starts, we are all Igbo but when you people want our resources you will start talking about minorities as if there are no minorities in the North.
The difference you see among different Biafran groups is because we know that the government is sponsoring some of them to destabilize us. Remember gowon said that if he had known he wouldn't have gone to war, he would have sponsored an Igbo man to counter Ojukwu. That is part of the strategy of this government against this Biafra agitation. I must tell you that IPOB, MASSOB under Uchenna Madu and LNC are not against each other.
There are IPOB families in Ebonyi state so they are part of the agitation. Even if they are not part of it, they will join when Biafra comes.
CORRUPT ION
Corruption is everywhere, you must have seen what happened in Democrats National Convention in the US, how the DNC who are supposed to be neutral worked against Sanders, you also must have seen the way Clinton investigations were carried out. So corruption is everywhere but it is worst in Africa. Biafra may not be an exemption but the difference is that the situation where every tribe will fight for their tribes man even if he is corrupt will not exist. Present political elites may not be the leaders because this agitation is a grassroots thing and I don't see them coming to hijack it. They know this, that is why majority of them are not supporting the agitation. The agitation by the masses means that a vote of no confidence has been passed on the political elites. Even if they find themselves in power, they will know that they are answerable to the masses who fought for the freedom.
SOUTH SOUTH
Like we have been saying, there is nothing like south south in the cardinal points, it is your creation just to divide us. Are there no minorities in the North? Why was there no minority commission in the North or West? Are all in the present day western Nigeria Yorubas? If not because you people have ulterior motive, where is that commission needed, is it in the eastern region that never had a history of war or in the North and West where there were wars of conquest. Your article clearly shows that you are trying to instigate that division your people propagated during and after the war but unfortunately for you, we are now wiser. We know who is dominating who now, we know who wants the oil because we know who has 83% and 15% of the oil blocks. We know who said that Bayelsa oil belong to them and who is claiming ownership of the oil in Bayelsa because of their large land mass. All the same, it will be good to note that Biafra is never by force. If the so called SS want to stay with Nigeria or want their own nation, Biafrans will never force them. Igbo speaking Biafrans are not landlocked as you claim. You mentioned Ndoki port, you forgot that there is a port in Onitsha, you forgot Oguta, Omambala river and many other rivers that can be dredged and developed if need be. You people have abandoned the "we feed you because your land is not fertile" mantra because the hardship in the country now has really shown who is feeding who.
LAGOS
This is another story that is making us believe that Yorubas are afraid of restoration of Biafra. Why must all Biafrans come home when Biafra is restored? Why are there Yorubas in the UK, US and other countries? Three days ago, Kenya clamped down on Nigerians in Kenya and arrested about 40 Nigerians, more than 70% are Yorubas. Why are they not in their country Nigeria? Are there no Nigerians with properties outside Nigeria? My dear brother anybody can live and own properties anywhere in the world. That is the argument you are using to scare our brothers that made some of them afraid of Biafra restoration. Unfortunately for you, times have changed, gone are those days when you have monopoly of the media where you spew all sorts of lies. We now can counter them and put the record straight.
YORUBA
Yes Yorubas are our natural allies because we are both from the south. We have problems because of mistrust that exists amongst us to the advantage of the north. It is unfortunate the Yorubas don't know they are also marginalized, just that the east are more marginalized than they are. I don't know if any Yoruba saw sir Ahmadu Bello's speech that was published on the Parrot newspaper of 12th October 1960. Let me just quote a part of it, "The new nation Nigeria should be an estate of our grandfather Usman Danfodio. We must ruthlessly prevent a change of power, we will use the minorities of the north as willing tools and the south as conquered territory and never allow them rule over us or allow them control over their future". He did not say East as conquered territory, he said South. It is unfortunate that the west think they are ok forgetting that these people not only want to perpetually rule us but do not want us to control our future.
Finally, I will like to tell all Nigerians that Biafra is not a call for war but a call for us to go back to how we were before the British joined us together for their selfish economic interest. We have lived together for more than hundred years and anybody who wants to tell himself the truth will concede that it has not worked. We hate each other, we are different. We have different value system, different religion, different food, different clothes, different languages and so on. Instead of us to wait till war separate us, it is better for us to separate in peace so that we can be happy neighbours where healthy rivalry will help each nation to be better while helping each other to be the best we can.
What do you think?
SOPULUCHUKWU EZEONWUKA ANOTHER REP MEMBER
GIVE REASONS NNAMDI KANU SHOULD BE RELEASED
IMMEDIATELY OR SEE WHAT HE SAID {MUST READ}
Sopuluchukwu ezeonwuka another rep member give reasons nnamdi kanu should be released immediately or see what he said {must read}
IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu should be granted bail pending his next trial, says, reacting to our correspondence, Hon. Sopuluchukwu Ezeonwuka pointed out that there are no grounds on which the IPOB leader should still be held in custody
The legislator says the rule of law is not being obeyed as regards Kanu’s case.
A member of House of Representatives representing Orumba North/Orumba South Federal Constituency of Anambra state, Hon Sopuluchukwu Ezeonwuka stated he said that there is no moral justification to continue to detain the leader of embattled leader of the IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu.
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday, March 20, fixed April 25 to decide whether or not the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, should be released on bail pending his trial.
Trial Justice Binta Nyako equally adjourned to rule on separate bail applications by three other pro-Biafra agitators, Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi, who are facing trial with Kanu.
Vanguard reports that the defendants who are answering to five-count criminal charge the Federal Government preferred against them, through their respective lawyers, prayed the court to grant them bail.
They contended that all the allegations FG levelled against them were bailable offences.
Kanu’s lawyer, Mr Ifeanyi Ejiofor, stressed that the court had in a ruling on March 1, struck out six out of the eleven count charges the FG initially slammed against the defendants.
He noted that charges that were struck out by the court bordered on criminal conspiracy and alleged involvement of the defendants in acts of terrorism. According to Ejiofor, that aspect of the charge having been expunged by the court, there was no basis for both Kanu and the other defendants to still remain in prison custody.
Speaking to newsmen at Governor’s Lodge, Amawbia, near Awka during Governor Willie Obiano’s three years in office, at the weekend, Ezeonwuka noted that it was quite unfortunate that the rule of law is not guiding Nigeria’s principles of democracy as it should.
He lamented that “Not allowing the rule of law to guide Nigeria’s principles of democracy does not speak well for democracy itself, let alone the government of the federation and even the judiciary itself which allowed its order to release Kanu unconditionally to be trampled upon and swept under the carpet.”
IPND Bill of Rights Declaration 08: Position on the Call for Restoration of Biafra Republic:
Published: November 24th, 2016.
The Indigenous People of Niger Delta (IPND) has over the years watched the unfolding identity crisis befalling Nigeria as a Country. Especially as it affects the basis of continuous coexistence and the call for restoration of Biafra Republic. We have watched closely with keen interest and have made far reaching consultations with our leaders, youths and women on the state of the Nigerian union and the way forward. Our position is articulated below.
As poetically put by the Late Nobel laureate Chinua Achebe in his book: "There Was A Country " page 40, on the Nigeria Independence, He said; "The general feeling in the air as Independence approached was extraordinary, like the building of the anticipation of the release of torrential rains after a season of scorching Harmattan winds and Bush fire". But not sooner than we got Independence than the Psuedo-neo-suicido-indigenous-colonialists took over the reign of our dear Nascent Nation known as Nigeria and obviously destroyed it to its very fabric through greed; today's Nigeria is therefore not the dreamed Nigeria of our forefathers.
We must state here that our fathers worked so hard in the founding of Nigeria as a Country but sadly all those struggles have all been eroded by the Pseudo-neo-suicido-indigenous-colonialists that has given rise to this poorly restructured, anti-people entity called Nigeria today. Nigeria as of today, is deliberately designed to exploit and marginalize the indigenous people of Niger Delta and of course the ordinary Nigerian citizenry through a military imposed constitution.
This is not the dreamed Nigeria of our most visionary and highly idealistic monarchs of blessed memory; H.R.M. Esezi II, The Orodje of Okpe and others; who were amongst the delegates of the Kings that attended the 1957 Lyttelton Conference held in London, in order to seek the Nigerian independence from the indirect government of the colonial masters. The Nigeria of today is not the dreamed Nigerian of our father Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe of blessed memory, which he dedicated his life to create through his enormous intellectual hardwork to ensure that Nigeria gained independence from the colonial masters and became the first ceremonial President of Nigeria in 1960 when Nigeria gained independence.
The Nigeria we have today is not the dreamed Nigeria of Late Pa. Anthony Anahoro who was the first to move a motion for the independence of Nigeria and which was eventually granted in 1960 after several political setbacks and defeats in parliament. As indigenous people of Niger Delta (IPND) we are proud of the fact that our Late Father, Pa Anthony Enahoro has been regarded by the academics and many Nigerians as the "Father of the Nigeria State". However, we recall in history that his motion for Nigeria's Independence suffered setbacks in parliament on several occasions with the northern members of parliament staging a walkout as a consequence of his motion, instead of nationalizing through continuous dialogue and agreement between the different indigenous people in Nigeria.
What we have today is a country based on unity by force founded in injustice, inequalities, lack of fairness and truths. Thus Nigeria requires restructuring as a matter of urgency as basis to resolve the so many socio-economic and socio political challenges facing her today.
We must state here that most of our National crisis today in Nigeria is as a result of imperviousness of the successive Leadership of this nation to meaningful intellectual engagement on issues of common interest to the people and an attempt of a few to lord over the majority.
National crisis shall continue to abound naturally from generations to generations in human civilization. However, they are meant to be solved by people with the political goodwill, Sincerity, right kind of knowledge, intelligence and experience. The kind of approach taken by a Government and her people will either solve the problems or worsen it. It is obvious that the approach of the Government of Nigeria before and till date is worsening the situation rather than solving it and it is therefore important that the Government and the people of Nigeria re-engineer their approach forthwith if the present crisis rocking Nigeria will be resolved.
To further portray the view point of IPND, historically speaking, it was in the 13th century (1296–1328) that the First Scottish Independence war was fought between the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, and which began with the English invasion of Scotland in 1296, and ended with the signing of the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton in 1328. While in the 14th century (1332–1357) the Second Scottish Independence war fought with the English-supported invasion by Edward Balliol and the "Disinherited" in 1332, ended in 1357 with the signing of the Treaty of Berwick. These wars witnessed huge destructions of human lives and properties and after many centuries, civilized people of Britain and other parts of Europe have come to the realizations that unity between different nations that coexist cannot be sustained by force as there is no such a thing as unity by force.
It was for this reason that in 2014, referendum was conducted for Scottish people, when some sections of Scotland agitated for independence of Scotland. We want to emphasise the fact that the Scottish agitators were not massacred by the British Security forces/military men unlike the way armless Biafra agitators were massacred by Nigerian armed forces as reported by Amnesty International's Report on the Killing of Biafra Agitators published in different international media stations around the world.
The one question that the Nigerian Government must ask itself now is that; if the British had massacred the agitators of Scottish Independence unlike the Nigeria Government continued killing of unarmed Biafra Agitators, how would the British society and economy look like today?
In light of above paragraph IPND conclusively define the below positions on the call for the restoration of Biafra Republic:
• Firstly, for the avoidance of doubt, IPND, Which is a representation of the indigenous tribes that inhabit the geographical Niger Delta Region that is made up of: Abia State, Akwa-Ibom State, Anambra State, Bayelsa State, Cross River State, Delta State, Enbonyi State, Edo State, Enugu State, Imo State, Rivers state, Kogi State, Ondo State and parts of Benue state, are one people that hold and share solid cultural affinity, ideology and religious beliefs. Thus, the agitators of Biafra Republic and their current leader Nnamdi Kanu are our brothers. Hence we cannot sit down and fold our arms with our mouths closed while the Nigerian Government continue to use the military to massacre our armless brothers and sisters who are only agitating for their fundamental human rights.
• Secondly, We must state clearly that IPND have a good knowledge of the history of Biafra, the Aburi accord, the aftermath and the impact of the Biafran War on the Niger Delta Region. Therefore for the avoidance of repeating the mistakes of the past we hereby call on the Government of Nigeria in strong terms to unconditionally and forthwith set free the current icon of the Biafra struggle, Nnamdi Kanu as he is only agitating for self-determination as stipulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007.
• It is the strong belief of IPND that Nigeria Government cannot achieve peaceful coexistence between the different indigenous people and nations that make up the Nigerian State by force, as there is no such thing as; unity by force. Thus, we hereby call on the Government of the Federal Republic Nigeria and of course the United Nations to as a matter of National and Global emergency convoke a Sovereign National Conference for the different ethnic nationalities and aggrieved people in Nigeria to sit down and discuss modalities of continued coexistence with a view to developing a new people oriented constitution that can promote unity of the indigenous tribes of Nigeria.
• IPND also strongly believe that a united and prosperous Nigeria for the overall benefits of the indigenous tribes and people of Nigeria is possible if Nigeria is restructured in line with the well-researched IPND Bill of Rights Declarations. A Nigeria that everyone can proudly call his or her own irrespective of his or her tribe or religious belief. A Nigeria were justice, fairness, truths and equity shall flow like the waters of the Niger River. It is our firm belief that the IPND Bill of Rights Declarations is the one antidote to the so many crisis rocking Nigeria today. Including the crisis resulting in the call for restoration of Biafra Republic.
We hereby cease this opportunity to call on our brothers agitating for the call for the restoration of Biafra Republic to join hands with the IPND to fight for restructuring of Nigeria based on the recommendations in the IPND Bill of Rights Declarations and or a modification as maybe necessary.
We, commend IPOB for the peaceful manner they have been going about the agitation for the restoration of Biafra Republic and we hereby urge them to continue to explore the nonviolent approach in the pursuit of their course until the Government of Nigeria and the UN shall convoke a Sovereign National Conference for the different ethnic nationalities in Nigeria to discuss modalities of continued coexistence. We are also using this medium to advise that IPOB apply this same vigor they have exercise, to perform their civic responsibility rights to vote in all elections and defend their votes forthwith. This will ensure the right quality of people are voted to represent us at all levels of governance and to further protect their interest both at the state and the Federal Level. In the 21st century, one of the tool of revolution and political emancipation is the ballot box. It must therefore be properly and adequately harnessed.
Conclusively and as stated earlier, we believe in one Nigeria where Equity, Fairness, Justice, Truth and Mutual respect between different ethnic nationalities reign is possible, with the implementation of the IPND Bill of Rights Declarations.
Comr. Tiemo B. Pumokumo,
National Spokesman,
Indigenous People of Niger Delta (IPND).
National Spokesman,
Indigenous People of Niger Delta (IPND).
6th April, 2017
ABUJA— Justice Binta Murtala Nyako of the Federal High Court Division, Abuja, has slated April 25th, 2017 to deliver the ruling on the new application filed by Nnamdi Kanu’s defense counsel for the variation of the order of the court to protect witnesses coming to testify against him and the other three defendants.
Barrister Ifeanyi Ejiofor, who had vehemently opposed the protection of security operatives coming to testify against his client during the last court session in February, asked the court to set aside the order it made on December 13, 2016, as the new charges the defendants are facing no longer require any form of secrecy.
According to Ejiofor, “My Lord, we filed an application on the 22nd of March, 2017. In support of this application, is a nine paragraph affidavit, and a written address dated 16th March 2017 was also filed. We plead that this honorable court should review the order made on the 13th day of December 2017.”
Other defense lawyers of the other three accused persons namely; Barristers Inalegwu Adoga, E.I Eseme and Chukwuma Ozougwu(standing in for Maxwell Okpara), all adopted the application filed for the variation on the protection of witnesses’ order.
They all argued that having been acquitted of the charges of terrorism and importation of weapons, the defendants cannot be tried with the identities of witnesses hidden based on section 36(6) of the 1999 Constitution.
According to Barrister Ozougwu, “My lord, we are relying on this application to urge you to grant the application to review and set aside the orders of this honorable court made on the 13th day of December 2016 on secret trial.”
Also speaking, Barrister Innocent E Eseme, lawyer to the third defendant said; “My lord, in the two sections mentioned, it is stated clearly that none of the defendants committed crimes such to undergo secret trial.
“Section 36(4) of the 1999 constitution, describes the mode of trial for all cases to be a public trial. The law does not give you the right to even talk about a secret trial. Terrorism is no more part of this case, as you struck it out my lord, hence there is no room for a secret trial.
“All parties including the Prosecutor and the defendants, are equal before the Court and they must be treated the same way. My Lord, any attempt to conduct a secret trial, is totally an injustice.”
However, the FG’s Prosecution counsel, Shuaibu Labaran in a counter affidavit urged the court to dismiss the application, alleging that it lacks merit and a deliberate ploy to delay the defenfants’ trial.
He said; “My Lord, having gone through the application filed by the defendants, we found out that it has no difference with the previous ones filed.
“We hereby plead that the Court should refuse the counter affidavit before the court. We also demand that my lord should dismiss the application because it does not just lack merit, but is frivolous in nature and a ploy to delay this matter.”
Adjourning the case till 25th April 2017, the trial judge who expressed dissatisfaction at the continuous filing of applications said; “this filing of new applications by the defending counsels is delaying this case. I might get angry and keep adjourning this case if this continues like this.”
Cynthia Anyikwa and Ejike Ofoegbu Reporting
For Biafra Writers
For Biafra Writers
The women are now out For Biafra, that is why I said That Biafra Is here At Hand. Praise Yahweh the Creator of the Whole World. Let His Name Be Praised for Ever and Ever. Iseeh
The deputy leader of the separatist group, Indigenous People of Biafra, Uche Mefor has raised alarm over alleged plot to assassinate their leader, Nnamdi Kanu, who is currently being detained in Kuje prisons, Abuja.
On his Facebook timeline, Mefor who is domiciled in the United Kingdom accused Justice Binta Nyako of the Federal High Court of using her position as a Judge to serve as a tool to breaking Kanu's resolve given her non-stop decision reversal.
The IPOB's second-in-command further accused the Department of State Security (DSS) of infiltrating IPOB with the intention of destroying the group from within.'
His statement reads in full:
As I write, the assassination plot to eliminate the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, at Kuje prison is gathering momentum. Justice Binta Nyako is being used from the legal front to break the resolve of our leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu as can be distinctly observed on her multiple volt-face rulings culminating in the reversing of her decisions at will and now gone back to introducing the must wicked and devilish Sharia penal code in the criminal justice system using our leader as guinea pig experiment. They are by this trying to try our leader in secret for an alleged trumped up charges for which they have not found any incriminating evidence to the contrary for almost two year running now.
Furthermore, the DSS is being used to infiltrate the IPOB with a view to destroying it from within.they are as we write recruiting IPOB family members to carry our these hatchet jobs. The recent stage-managed creation of a parallel authority to that our of leader is a case in hand.The people involved know themselves.
Today, the prison authorities have have further debarred anybody from visiting our leader at Kuje prison.Specifically, all the visitors who lined up to see our leader were turned back and told that our leader would no longer be visited without the express permission from the prison authorities/DSS. Recall that they had earlier introduced a very obnoxious and highly restricted systeme of collecting data of people you visits him thereby continually violating the right to privacy of the Biafran people. The siege is now effectively perfected and the ultimate assassination plot has reached it crescendo and now assumed a more dangerous trend with the outright isolation of our leader from friends and family and indeed the general public wish to convey to him their messages of goodwill.
We, the Indigenous People of Biafra, hereby, alert the international Community and the world at large that if anything happens to our leader, the British government, Muhammadu Buhari and all the moles in IPOB must be held accountable. IPOB family members are by this further put on alert to look inwards into what is happening within IPOB as there are impostors sponsored by the DSS to destabilise IPOB from within. To identify these people is very simple: they defy orders issued by the central command.They hold parallel meetings contrary to the instructions given.They continue to profess loyalty to the leader but they go about organising separate events other than the officially approved and organised ones. Brethren, you must dissociate yourselves from anybody or group of people conducting themselves in this manner.If you truly have Mazi Nnamdi Kanu as your leader, you must report these suspicious conducts in timely manner.Our leader in prison for voicing out in defence of our rights.Why then must any right-thinking humans think that they will take advantage of the situation to sabotage the efforts of our leader.We must rise up against these challenges now and subsequently. this because any injustice to one is an injustice to all.
Uche Mefor
[Deputy Leader, Indigenous People of Biafra]
IPOB Press Statement
9 April 2017
‘CHARLES IBEKWE’ AND HIS IDIOTIC TIRADES AGAINST IPOB: A DISPASSIONATE ANALYSIS OF WHY BIAFRANS ARE AGAINST BURATAI’S KANGAROO PANEL OF ENQUIRY
It is with confounding befuddlement that we read a piece fraudulently ascribed to one mischievous character that choose to be contented with the mask of ‘Charles Ibekwe’ claiming to be of Biafrian descent. But for the susceptibility of many undiscerning members of the public who might fall for his unconscionable antics, we would not have spared an ounce of energy in dismembering his poorly rehearsed tale of raw falsehoods dripping with ghoulish assassination of immutable historical facts.
In 1918 US Senator Hiram Warren Johnson is purported to have said: The first casualty when war comes is truth. However, this was not recorded. In 1928 Arthur Ponsonby's wrote: That 'When war is declared, truth is the first casualty'. (Refer to Falsehood in Wartime). It was Samuel Johnson who first confirmed that: 'Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages. (Refer to The Idler, 1758).
We IPOB, knowing fully well that our decisive struggle to restore the Great Biafrian nation is now at a very critical stage, are not surprised that the sworn-enemies of Biafra will stop at nothing in attempting to derail our avowed course. Be that as it may, we will always continue to be gracious in taking the unrepentant and the irredeemably daft like ‘Charles Ibekwe’, Joe Igbokwe of Lagos and the intellectually incoherent Rudolph Okonkwo of Sharia Reporters to the International law lecture hall. In charting the course of this rebuttal, it is important to stress that all the hullabaloo encircling General Buratai’s kangaroo Army Panel of Inquiry vis-à-vis our quest to restore Biafra can only be properly appreciated from the standpoint of International law and human rights observed and practiced by all civilized nations of the world.
We IPOB, knowing fully well that our decisive struggle to restore the Great Biafrian nation is now at a very critical stage, are not surprised that the sworn-enemies of Biafra will stop at nothing in attempting to derail our avowed course. Be that as it may, we will always continue to be gracious in taking the unrepentant and the irredeemably daft like ‘Charles Ibekwe’, Joe Igbokwe of Lagos and the intellectually incoherent Rudolph Okonkwo of Sharia Reporters to the International law lecture hall. In charting the course of this rebuttal, it is important to stress that all the hullabaloo encircling General Buratai’s kangaroo Army Panel of Inquiry vis-à-vis our quest to restore Biafra can only be properly appreciated from the standpoint of International law and human rights observed and practiced by all civilized nations of the world.
This can only be so because issues touching on secession are borne out of the exercise of the right to self-determination whose provenance is only traceable to international law. The second issue of the kangaroo Panel of Inquiry set up by General Buratai to probe the brutal butchery of IPOB members as graphically exposed by the forensic investigation of the Amnesty International is rooted in human rights law. What is more, these twin issues identified above formed the springboard of ‘Charles Ibekwe’s idiotic tales which, according to the legendary William Shakespeare, is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Instead of addressing his mind to the clear issues raised by the IPOB press release, ‘Charles Ibekwe’ mischievously opted to bifurcate issues through his dubious indulgence in hair splitting in the hope to becloud the thought processes of his poorly educated and undiscerning victims.
It has been said of old that the right to self-determination is a universal one. Historically, in 1966, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the International Covenants on Human Rights. Both these Covenants have an identical first article, declaring inter alia that ‘all peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status’, while states parties to the instruments ‘shall promote the realisation of the right of self-determination and shall respect that right in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations’. The Covenants came into force in 1976 and thus constitute binding provisions as between the parties, but in addition they also may be regarded as authoritative interpretations of several human rights provisions in the Charter, including self-determination.
The 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations can be regarded as constituting an authoritative interpretation of the seven Charter provisions it expounds. The Declaration states inter alia that ‘by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all people have the right freely to determine . . . their political status’ while all states are under the duty to respect this right in accordance with the Charter. (See Malcolm Shaw on The Principles of International law, 6h edition, Pg. 253-257). Resolution 1514 (XV), the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted in 1960 by eighty-nine votes to none, with nine abstentions, stressed that:
“all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
Even then on the wider plane of international justice system, the International Court of Justice (ICJ, has eloquently put a seal of judicial approval on the foregoing perspicacious proposition of law. For instance, the ICJ in the East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) case authoritatively declared that ‘Portugal’s assertion that the right of peoples to self-determination, as it evolved from the Charter and from United Nations practice, has an erga omnes character, is irreproachable. The Court emphasised that the right of peoples to self-determination was ‘one of the essential principles of contemporary international law’. See: ICJ Reports, 1995, pp. 90, 102; 105 ILR, p. 226.
“all peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
Even then on the wider plane of international justice system, the International Court of Justice (ICJ, has eloquently put a seal of judicial approval on the foregoing perspicacious proposition of law. For instance, the ICJ in the East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) case authoritatively declared that ‘Portugal’s assertion that the right of peoples to self-determination, as it evolved from the Charter and from United Nations practice, has an erga omnes character, is irreproachable. The Court emphasised that the right of peoples to self-determination was ‘one of the essential principles of contemporary international law’. See: ICJ Reports, 1995, pp. 90, 102; 105 ILR, p. 226.
It is interesting to inform the likes of ‘Charles Ibekwe’ and his paymasters that this universal position of the law has found firm anchorage in advanced democracies of the world. One example will suffice. The issue of self-determination came before the Supreme Court of Canada in Reference Re Secession of Quebec in 1998 in the form of three questions posed. The second question asked whether there existed in international law a right to self-determination which would give Quebec the right unilaterally to secede. The Court declared that the principle of self-determination ‘has acquired a status beyond “convention” and is considered a general principle of international law’See: (1998) 161 DLR (4th) 385; 115 ILR, p. 536
Coming nearer home, the African Union adopted the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. By its Article 20, the right to self-determination is most vigorously entrenched and proclaimed thus;
“All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.”
“All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.”
It is instructive to note that the Nigerian nation not only acceded to this profound international instrument but equally domesticated same in compliance with section 12 of the amended 1999 Constitution. While we graciously concede that Cap. 10 (The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right Act) of the laws of the Federation 1990 does not tower above the grund norm (the Constitution) as contended by ‘Charlse Ibekwe’, we make haste to state that the superior position of this African Charter has been confirmed by no less an institution than the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the celebrated and often cited case of Fawehinmi vs. Abacha (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt.660)228. 2, (2000) 4 S.C (Pt II) 1. 3
We most respectively exhume the late Justice Ogundare who wrote the leading judgment for that Court to teach ‘Charlse Ibekwe’. Hear him;
“No doubt Cap. 10 is a statue with international flavour. Being so, therefore, I would think that if here is a conflict between it and another statue, its provisions will prevail over those of that other statue for the reason that it is presumed that the legislature does not intend to breach an international obligation. To this extent I agree with their Lordships of the Court below that the Charter possesses "a greater vigour and strength" than any other domestic statue.”
The second issue deals with the steely resolve of the IPOB not to be part of the sham proceedings which General Buratai is hastening to organize in his kangaroo Panel of Inquiry. Our reasons (founded on unassailable principles of natural justice which are now of venerable antiquity), still stand like mountain Gilbralter. It is not the practice of civilized nations that an accused person would be permitted to preside over his own trial since the outcome would be a caricature of justice. This plausible summation remains unanswerable by ‘Charles Ibekwe’ and his sponsors.
“No doubt Cap. 10 is a statue with international flavour. Being so, therefore, I would think that if here is a conflict between it and another statue, its provisions will prevail over those of that other statue for the reason that it is presumed that the legislature does not intend to breach an international obligation. To this extent I agree with their Lordships of the Court below that the Charter possesses "a greater vigour and strength" than any other domestic statue.”
The second issue deals with the steely resolve of the IPOB not to be part of the sham proceedings which General Buratai is hastening to organize in his kangaroo Panel of Inquiry. Our reasons (founded on unassailable principles of natural justice which are now of venerable antiquity), still stand like mountain Gilbralter. It is not the practice of civilized nations that an accused person would be permitted to preside over his own trial since the outcome would be a caricature of justice. This plausible summation remains unanswerable by ‘Charles Ibekwe’ and his sponsors.
It is only sufficient to note in passing, before signing off this rebuttal, the utterly denigrating and gutter languages deployed by the said ‘Charlse Ibekwe’ in his narrative which could best be described as a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing (apology to William Shakespeare). Such is meant for the marines and wears all the semblances of one of such fables lifted from ‘Alice in Wonderland’. There must be an end to unconscionable dissemination of blatant falsehoods. We choose to stop here for now.
SIGNED:
Dr. Ikenna Chinaka
Mrs Grace Ukpai
IPOB SPOKESPERSON
Dr. Ikenna Chinaka
Mrs Grace Ukpai
IPOB SPOKESPERSON
By Mazi Onyebuchi Eze
For Family Writers
Having studied the general body language of Justice Binta Nyako, the presiding Judge of the case of the frivolous and empty 5 count charges instituted against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and other IPOB defendants by Nigeria government, on the trial under reference, what is worthy of understanding is that the trial Judge is now in self-inflicted confusion. The said confusion of the trial Judge is because she refused to preside over the case from the stipulated judicial procedures known to Nigeria domestic judicial laws.
Nigeria domestic judicial laws stipulated openly that an accused persons whose prosecutor has not provided satisfiable exhibits to court that he or she is a terrorism suspect, is entitle to bail on the ground of the following reasons:
(1) To enable the accused person who has equal right with the plaintiff before the court to go home & prepare for his defense.
(2) So that the damages which the plaintiff may pay as compensation or restitution may not be overwhelming should the accused person be found innocent after trial.
(3) The accused person can be granted bail if such person is as popular as the Supreme leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) on the ground of self-recognition because a popular person like NNAMDI KANU can no longer hide anywhere in the world.
(4) An accused person can be granted bail if the accused person travelling documents including his Int'l passports have been seized as in case of Mazi Kanu.
However, a supposed learned Judge mounting judicial podium in Federal High Court of Nigeria pretending ignorance to this judicial interpretation which is glaring before the world. On the issue of the prayer for the obnoxious secret trial made by prosecutor and granted by same trial Judge, which is raising dust at the moment and being used to buy more time for Nigeria government as the unsubstantiated case is now holding it to its jugular, it is good to know that Justice Binta Nyako would have vacated her initial grant of secret trial as soon as she quashed the 6 counts of charges which contained the minor terrorism frame-up allegation on the account of Prima Facie ruling on 20/3/2017, but she did not do so. All these judicial recklessness from Justice Binta Nyako has made me begin to hold an opinion that Justice Binta Nyako is not educated enough to serve as a Judge in Nigeria.
Having studied the general body language of Justice Binta Nyako, the presiding Judge of the case of the frivolous and empty 5 count charges instituted against Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and other IPOB defendants by Nigeria government, on the trial under reference, what is worthy of understanding is that the trial Judge is now in self-inflicted confusion. The said confusion of the trial Judge is because she refused to preside over the case from the stipulated judicial procedures known to Nigeria domestic judicial laws.
Nigeria domestic judicial laws stipulated openly that an accused persons whose prosecutor has not provided satisfiable exhibits to court that he or she is a terrorism suspect, is entitle to bail on the ground of the following reasons:
(1) To enable the accused person who has equal right with the plaintiff before the court to go home & prepare for his defense.
(2) So that the damages which the plaintiff may pay as compensation or restitution may not be overwhelming should the accused person be found innocent after trial.
(3) The accused person can be granted bail if such person is as popular as the Supreme leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) on the ground of self-recognition because a popular person like NNAMDI KANU can no longer hide anywhere in the world.
(4) An accused person can be granted bail if the accused person travelling documents including his Int'l passports have been seized as in case of Mazi Kanu.
However, a supposed learned Judge mounting judicial podium in Federal High Court of Nigeria pretending ignorance to this judicial interpretation which is glaring before the world. On the issue of the prayer for the obnoxious secret trial made by prosecutor and granted by same trial Judge, which is raising dust at the moment and being used to buy more time for Nigeria government as the unsubstantiated case is now holding it to its jugular, it is good to know that Justice Binta Nyako would have vacated her initial grant of secret trial as soon as she quashed the 6 counts of charges which contained the minor terrorism frame-up allegation on the account of Prima Facie ruling on 20/3/2017, but she did not do so. All these judicial recklessness from Justice Binta Nyako has made me begin to hold an opinion that Justice Binta Nyako is not educated enough to serve as a Judge in Nigeria.
Can somebody explain the rationale behind a trial Judge telling a defendant that his reaction over court's refusal to order the plaintiff to return his confiscated cars should be why the accused will remain in custody, as Binta Nyako told Benjamin Madubugwu on April 6, 2017? Does it mean that the trial Judge has sentenced the defendant in prison indefinitely using powers vested on the court as her personal property?
It is on this ground that I hereby once again call on Justice Binta Nyako to honourably hands-off this case before she is disgraced in the open court. If Justice Binta Nyako refuses to hand-off this case as she has ignorantly or overzealously messed up the case, I hereby called on the MOTHER JUSTICE in the realm to designate her an anathema for desecrating the judicial altar with injustice. Watch out and see the waterloo of the clueless Judge soonest, as the hammer of MOTHER JUSTICE will fall on her just as her pay-master who has gone in forever and can never come back.
I also call on the IPOB defense lawyers led by Hon Ifeanyi Ejiofor to vehemently stand that the trial Judge must vacate the Secret trial ruling or hit the exit door out of the case because no defendant is presently answerable to any terrorism charges any more. Let the IPOB defense lawyers never allow the intimidation and lawless roarings of the trial Judge make them ever feel intimidated before the clueless Judge. In the judicial procedures, it is always where the right and powers of the trial Judge ends is where the right and powers of a defense lawyer begins. Nobody whether trial Judge, prosecutor or defense lawyer should ever think he or she is the monopoly or island of powers.
I am giving these analyses to encourage IPOB lawyers to understand that in judicial process, they have powers as members of NBA to give a matching order to the trial to vacate the initial ruling under reference or hit exit door out of the trial or her excesses will be compiled & be reported to NJC. IPOB lawyers should fear nothing at this time when the knees of both the trial Judge & the prosecutor are knocking due to their conspiracy which is already leaking. Nobody will ban them or walk them out of court unless if they become deviant to court procedures.
All I saw from the court sitting of 6/4/2017 is a confused trial Judge thinking towards the exit door out of the trial because blackmail on her is not allowing her to go according to her judicial oath of office. I rest my case!
Sunday, December 18, 2016
Declassified Files From British Government Expose Gen. Gowon Lies About Biafran-Nigerian War (Part1)
Could this be part of the secret Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra threatened to expose? well, find out as you read through the article below, after the cut...
While the British interests being paramount to them were very clearly revealed in the declassified files, it very well revealed some daunting facts about the lies told by Gen. Yakubu Gowon about trying hard to stop starvation in the Biafran region, when he actually imposed blockade on Biafra and used starvation as means of war. How could the same man claim to have done enough to stop the ugly pictures of starving children?
The declassified files from the British government made available to The Republican News exposed every lies and details of every steps taken by Federal Military Government led by Gen. Yakubu Gowon to punish, stifle efforts by Biafrans to have access to food and medical care and aids.
Due to the size of the documents, The Republican News promised to serialize them on weekly basis until it exhausts these facts. The lies about the civil war and the consequences of the evil actions taken to kill millions of Biafrans must be dealt with whilst the perpetrators of these evil acts are still alive.
‘Our direct interests are trade and investment, including an important stake by Shell/BP in the eastern Region. There are nearly 20,000 British nationals in Nigeria, for whose welfare we are of course specially [sic] concerned’, the Foreign Office noted a few days before the outbreak of the war. Shell/BP’s investments amounted to around £200 million, with other British investment in Nigeria accounting for a further £90 million. It was then partly owned by the British government, and the largest producer of oil which provided most of Nigeria’s export earnings. Most of this oil was in the eastern region.
It is succinctly clear that the British government cared not about the Nigerian side or worse still the Biafrans, but the sole aim and paramount interest was the economic advantage they commanded in Nigeria. So, they cared less if the entire country is engulfed in flames provided it does not consume their economic interest. This was further explained by the British Commonwealth Minister, George Thomas.
Commonwealth Minister George Thomas wrote in August 1967 that: ‘The sole immediate British interest in Nigeria is that the Nigerian economy should be brought back to a condition in which our substantial trade and investment in the country can be further developed, and particularly so we can regain access to important oil installations’.
Thomas further outlined the primary reason why Britain was so keen to preserve Nigerian unity, noting that ‘our only direct interest in the maintenance of the federation is that Nigeria has been developed as an economic unit and any disruption of this would have adverse effects on trade and development’. If Nigeria were to break up, he added: ‘We cannot expect that economic cooperation between the component parts of what was Nigeria, particularly between the East and the West, will necessarily enable development and trade to proceed at the same level as they would have done in a unified Nigeria; nor can we now count on the Shell/BP oil concession being regained on the same terms as in the past if the East and the mid-West assume full control of their own economies’.
Ojukwu initially tried to get Shell/BP to pay royalties to the Biafran government rather than the FMG. The oil companies, after giving the Biafrans a small token payment, eventually refused and Ojukwu responded by sequestering Shell’s property and installations, forbidding Shell to do any further business and ordering all its staff out. They ‘have much to lose if the FMG do not achieve the expected victory’, George Thomas noted in August 1967.
But the explicit clues that exposes Gen. Yakubu Jack Gowon’s claim that he did everything he could to avoid the mass starvation and deaths of Biafrans, mainly children and women who were not involved in the war, were laid to bare.
We could recollect few weeks ago that Senator Godswill Akpabio debunked that claim by Gen. Yakubu Gowon for doing his best to avoid the mass starvation of Biafrans. How could he, Gowon claim to have done his best to avoid the starvation of the Biafrans when he imposed total blockade on the Biafra?
A key British aim throughout the war was to secure the lifting of the blockade which Gowon imposed on the east and which stopped oil exports.
In the run-up to Gowon’s declaration of war, Britain had made it clear to the FMG that it completely supported Nigerian unity. George Thomas had told the Nigerian High Commissioner in London at the end of April 1967, for example, that ‘the Federal government had our sympathy and our full support’ but said that he hoped the use of force against the east could be avoided.
Sen. Godswill Akpabio Exposes The Lies Of Gowon, Nigerian Government On Biafra-Nigeria Civil War
On 28 May Gowon, having just declared a state of emergency, explicitly told Britain’s Defence attaché that the FMG was likely to ‘mount an invasion from the north’. Gowon asked whether Britain would provide fighter cover for the attack and naval support to reinforce the blockade of Eastern ports; the Defence Attaché replied that both were out of the question.
By the time Gowon ordered military action in early July, therefore, Britain had refused Nigerian requests to be militarily involved and had urged Gowon to seek a ‘peaceful’ solution. However, the Wilson government had also assured Gowon of British support for Nigerian unity at a time when military preparations were taking place. And Britain had also made no signs that it might cut off, or reduce, arms supplies if a military campaign were launched.
The new High Commissioner in Lagos, Sir David Hunt, wrote in a memo to London on 12 June that the “only way… of preserving unity [sic] of Nigeria is to remove Ojukwu by force”. He said that Ojukwu was committed to remaining the ruler of an independent state and that British interests lay in firmly supporting the FMG.
Before going to war, Gowon began what was to become a two and half-year long shopping list of arms that the FMG wanted from Britain. On 1 July he asked Britain for jet fighter/bomber aircraft, six fast boats and 24 anti-aircraft guns. ‘We want to help the Federal Government in any way we can’, British officials noted. However, Britain rejected supplying the aircraft, fearing that they would publicly demonstrate direct British intervention in the war and, at this stage, also rejected supplying the boats. London did, however, agree to supply the anti-aircraft guns and to provide training courses to use them.
The Deputy High Commissioner in Enugu, Biafra’s main city, noted that the supply of these anti-aircraft guns and their ammunition would be seen as British backing for the FMG and also that they were not entirely defensive weapons anyway since ‘they could also take on an offensive role if mounted in an invasion fleet’. Nevertheless, the government’s news department was instructed to stress the ‘defensive nature of these weapons’ when pressed but generally to avoid publicity on their export from Britain.
The Commissioner Hunt said that ‘it would be better to use civil aircraft’ to deliver these guns and secured agreement from the Nigerians that ‘there would be no publicity’ in supplying then. Faced with Gowon’s complaints about Britain not supplying more arms, Wilson also agreed in mid July to supply the Federal Military Government (FMG) with fast patrol boats. This was done in the knowledge that they would help the FMG maintain the blockade against Biafra.
Source: Declassified British Memo
The Republican News
-COPIED
INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENT OF FREEDOM.
INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENT OF FREEDOM.
M.M.Mbanaja
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples rights (also known as the Banjul Charter) is an international human rights instrument that is intended to promote and protect human rights and basic freedoms in the African continent.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples rights (also known as the Banjul Charter) is an international human rights instrument that is intended to promote and protect human rights and basic freedoms in the African continent.
Oversight and interpretation of the Charter are the tasks of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, which was set up in 1987 and is now headquartered in Banjul, Gambia. A protocol to the Charter was subsequently adopted in 1998 whereby an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights was to be created. The protocol came into effect on 25 January 2005 with Nigeria as an active member.
The slave masters in their selfish quest for wealth, grouped different indigenous peoples together to ease their administration like in the case of Lord Lugard and the girlfriend, Flora Shaw who lackadaisically amalgamated more than four countries into one fake country in 1914 forcefully without due consideration to the future consequences.
These forced selfish unions amongst various indigenous peoples of the world resulted in the Banjul conference in Gambia.
These forced selfish unions amongst various indigenous peoples of the world resulted in the Banjul conference in Gambia.
ARTICLE 19
All peoples shall be equal; they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another.
ARTICLE 20
ARTICLE 20
All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.
Colonized or oppressed peoples shall have the right to free themselves from the bonds of domination by resorting to any means recognized by the international community.
Colonized or oppressed peoples shall have the right to free themselves from the bonds of domination by resorting to any means recognized by the international community.
All peoples shall have the right to the assistance of the State Parties to the present Charter in their liberation struggle against foreign domination, be it political, economic or cultural.
ARTICLE 21
All peoples shall freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources. This right shall be exercised in the exclusive interest of the people. In no case shall a people be deprived of it.
In the case of spoliation, the dispossessed people shall have the right to the lawful recovery of its property as well as to an adequate compensation.
The free disposal of wealth and natural resources shall be exercised without prejudice to the obligation of promoting international economic cooperation based on mutual respect, equitable exchange and the principles of international law.
State Parties to the present Charter shall individually and collectively exercise the right to free disposal of their wealth and natural resources with a view to strengthening African Unity and solidarity.
State Parties to the present Charter shall individually and collectively exercise the right to free disposal of their wealth and natural resources with a view to strengthening African Unity and solidarity.
ARTICLE 22
All peoples shall have the right to their economic, social and cultural development with due regard to their freedom and identity and in the equal enjoyment of the common heritage of mankind.
States shall have the duty, individually or collectively, to ensure the exercise of the right to development.
States shall have the duty, individually or collectively, to ensure the exercise of the right to development.
One positive outcome of Nnamdi Kanu's incarceration and trial is the Biafran lawyers extraction of the truth that based on these United nations charter, the indigenous people of Biafra is a legal entity that deserves the right to canvass the aforementioned international instrument, hence the next stage of the struggle is the lawyers using jurisprudence to finalize the freedom of indigenous people of Biafra.
Long live the united states of Bi
Long live the united states of Bi
•IPOB Leader Nnamdi Kanu.
Posted 20/03/2017 3:56:18 PM
The Federal High Court, Abuja, will on April 25 rule on whether or not the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, and three others, should be admitted to bail.
The judge, Justice Binta Nyako, gave the date after hearing arguments from counsel to Kanu and those of the three co-defendants – Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi.
Counsel to Kanu, Mr Ifeanyi Ejiofor, in his argument, told the court that the proof of evidence filed by the prosecution against his client was not strong enough to warrant his continued detention.
According to him, the proof of evidence is empty and not strong enough to sustain the charge against him and his health is deteriorating.
“We have attached nine exhibits to our application; one of them is an order of this court made by your learned colleague, Justice Adeniyi Ademola, that he be granted bail which has not been complied with.
“We also attached a letter we wrote to the Controller-General of Prisons informing him of an attempt to terminate the life of the defendant.
“Canisters of tear gas were left in his cell which he inhaled and this has affected his lungs and he can barely stand and if not released on bail, his health will get worse in prison.” Ejiofor said.
He acknowledged that bail was at the discretion of the court, and urged the judge to exercise the discretion in favour of his client in the most liberal terms.
Mr Inalegwu Adoga, counsel to Onwudiwe, urged the court to admit his client to bail, adding that bail was constitutional, temporary and would end if the defendant was convicted.
He argued that his continuous detention amounted to him already serving a jail term even though the constitution held that he was innocent until proven otherwise.
He expressed concerns that he might not be able to properly defend his client while in detention as the DSS was making it impossible to have access to him.
“On the last day I went to visit my client in Kuje Prison, l was told by stern looking DSS operatives that he was no longer allowed visits from anyone, including his lawyers.”
Mr E.I Eseme, Counsel to Madubugwu, told the court that his client was being held on a two-count charge which was not even remotely related to a capital offence.
He said that since his client had no previous criminal record, he was entitled to bail, adding that when released on bail, he would not commit any other crime.
Nwawuisi’s counsel Maxwell Okpara also appealed to the judge to grant his client bail, adding that the court’s last ruling, which struck out some of the charges against his client gave hope to a lot of people.
“Granting bail to the defendants will pave way for peace just as when Uwazurike and Asari Dokubo were granted bail, it paved way for peace.”
The prosecuting counsel, Mr Shuaibu Labaran, opposed the application for bail, arguing that the first, third and fourth defendants premised their applications on non-existing laws.
“They based their application on the Criminal Procedure Act, nevertheless we replied.”
Labaran prayed the court to refuse the bail application and maintain the order of accelerated hearing for the case.
Nyako adjourned the matter until April 25 to rule on the bail application.
Kanu and his co-defendants are standing trial on charges of treasonable felony, unlawful possession of firearms and other offences bordering on their agitation for the secession of the Republic of Biafra from Nigeria.
Nyako would be the second judge to hear Kanu’s bail application.
Ademola had in 2016 admitted Kanu to bail unconditionally while ruling in an application filed and argued by his former lawyer, Vincent Obeta.
Kanu, however, during one of sittings told the court that he was no longer confident in the court saying he got information that he would not receive a fair hearing.
The case file was then returned to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, who reassigned it to Justice John Tsoho.
However, following an alleged conflicting ruling given on the issue of secret trial in favour of the DSS, Kanu in a petition asked the National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate Tsoho.
He also filed an application asking the judge to disqualify himself from the matter.
Tsoho then hands off the matter on Sept. 26 and sent the case file to Auta who reassigned it to Nyako. (NAN)
Sourc•IPOB Leader Nnamdi Kanu.
The Federal High Court, Abuja, will on April 25 rule on whaether or not the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, and three others, should be admitted to bail.
The judge, Justice Binta Nyako, gave the date after hearing arguments from counsel to Kanu and those of the three co-defendants – Chidiebere Onwudiwe, Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi.
Counsel to Kanu, Mr Ifeanyi Ejiofor, in his argument, told the court that the proof of evidence filed by the prosecution against his client was not strong enough to warrant his continued detention.
According to him, the proof of evidence is empty and not strong enough to sustain the charge against him and his health is deteriorating.
“We have attached nine exhibits tem is an order of this court made by your learned colleague, Justice Adeniyi Ademola, that he be granted bail which has not been complied with.
“We also attached a letter we wrote to the Controller-General of Prisons informing him of an attempt to terminate the life of the defendant.
“Canisters of tear gas were left in his cell which he inhaled and this has affected his lungs and he can barely stand and if not released on bail, his health will get worse in prison.” Ejiofor said.
He acknowledged that bail was at the discretion of the court, and urged the judge to exercise the discretion in favour of his client in the most liberal terms.
Mr Inalegwu Adoga, counsel to Onwudiwe, urged the court to admit his client to bail, adding that bail was constitutional, temporary and would end if the defendant was convicted.
He argued that his continuous detention amounted to him already serving a jail term even though the constitution held that he was innocent until proven otherwise.
He expressed concerns that he might not be able to properly defend his client while in detention as the DSS was making it impossible to have access to him.
“On the last day I went to visit my client in Kuje Prison, l was told by stern looking DSS operatives that he was no longer allowed visits from anyone, including his lawyers.”
Mr E.I Eseme, Counsel to Madubugwu, told the court that his client was being held on a two-count charge which was not even remotely related to a capital offence.
He said that since his client had no previous criminal record, he was entitled to bail, adding that when released on bail, he would not commit any other crime.
Nwawuisi’s counsel Maxwell Okpara also appealed to the judge to grant his client bail, adding that the court’s last ruling, which struck out some of the charges against his client gave hope to a lot of people.
“Granting bail to the defendants will pave way for peace just as when Uwazurike and Asari Dokubo were granted bail, it paved way for peace.”
The prosecuting counsel, Mr Shuaibu Labaran, opposed the application for bail, arguing that the first, third and fourth defendants premised their applications on non-existing laws.
“They based their application on the Criminal Procedure Act, nevertheless we replied.”
Labaran prayed the court to refuse the bail application and maintain the order of accelerated hearing for the case.
Nyako adjourned the matter until April 25 to rule on the bail application.
Kanu and his co-defendants are standing trial on charges of treasonable felony, unlawful possession of firearms and other offences bordering on their agitation for the secession of the Republic of Biafra from Nigeria.
Nyako would be the second judge to hear Kanu’s bail application.
Ademola had in 2016 admitted Kanu to bail unconditionally while ruling in an application filed and argued by his former lawyer, Vincent Obeta.
Kanu, however, during one of sittings told the court that he was no longer confident in the court saying he got information that he would not receive a fair hearing.
The case file was then returned to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta, who reassigned it to Justice John Tsoho.
However, following an alleged conflicting ruling given on the issue of secret trial in favour of the DSS, Kanu in a petition asked the National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate Tsoho.
He also filed an application asking the judge to disqualify himself from the matter.
Tsoho then hands off the matter on Sept. 26 and sent the case file to Auta who reassigned it to Nyako. (NAN)
Source News ExpressPosted 20/03/2017 3:56:18 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment