Behind the Agitation for Biafra
By Ezedi Udom
Nigerian Guardian
December 9, 2015 7:00 am
I commend the Editorial Board of The Guardian for your Editorial of Tuesday, 24 November, 2015, titled: ‘The agitation of Biafra’ which brought the issue of the Biafra protests to limelight, even when many other institutions that have the capacity of providing a platform for a meaningful discourse on the matter shy away from that responsibility. While I agree with some of the assertions in the editorial,
I am of the view that this editorial trivialised the cause of the agitation – the marginalisation of the southeastern region of the country – to borrow the words of Col. Joseph Achuzie, in general and the political subjection of the Igbo race in particular.
It paid little attention to how we came here – from one-third to five of 36 (one-seventh) within 30 years, courtesy of mere fiats from dictators of northern extraction. These fiats were never done with any positive consideration of the Igbo race.
Ever since the civil war, the government of Nigeria has maintained a belligerent posture against the southeastern region, only acquiescing it just what it thinks would enable it hold down the Igbo agitation. If we excuse all that happened during the war as part of the war, what can anyone say of various Nigerian policies since the end of the war?
At the end of the war, the government of Gowon exchanged the deposits of Igbos in the banks prior to the war for not more than twenty pounds per depositor. Also in pursuance of the administration’s reconstruction agenda, Gowon did his work in Lagos despite the fact that the war was fought in the Eastern region.
Another area to look at is the creation of states – from the four regions of Eastern, Mid-Western, Northern, Southern in 1963, to 12 states 1967 by General Yakubu Gowon; to 19 states in 1976 by General Murtala Muhammed; to 21 states in 1987 and 30 states in 1991, by General Ibrahim Babangida, and to 36 states in 1996 by Gen Sani Abacha? In the current composition, the North has 19 states representing 52.7 per cent; the then Eastern has nine or 25 per cent, the then Southern has six or 16.6 per cent and the then Mid-Western has two or 5.5 per cent. Senatorial constituencies, which are allotted three to each state, further shows the skewed power structure in favour of the Northern region.
A look at the creation of the six geopolitical regions of the country, another political structure that is used in distributing the country’s commonwealth further shows the marginalisation of the southeastern region to the benefit of the North. The six geopolitical regions were distributed three to the then North, one to the then South, one for the then Mid-West and a part of the then East, and one for the then East. The same scenario is played out in the creation of local governments areas (LGAs) in Nigeria, which were also arbitrarily done by the same dictators. Of the 774 LGAs, the then Eastern Region has 24.9 per cent, Mid-Western has 5.5 per cent, Southern has 17 per cent, and the North has 51.8 per cent.
Like the allocation of resources in Nigeria, the allocation of opportunities is also along this flawed structure. Most people from the then Biafra lost years of schooling as a result of the war that was fought on its territory but the Nigerian government did nothing to cushion the effect of this loss. It instead promulgated the federal character policy that supposedly intended to give equal opportunities to the states arbitrarily created by the northerners as against the constitutionally created regions.
To further underscore the ulterior motive for this promulgation, the political office holders, who have been predominantly north, pick and choose when to apply this policy so that the North becomes the major beneficiaries. They apply it in academic, and not in job, opportunities. A case in point is that apart from the fact that no person from the Southeast occupies any of the five major political seats in the country, it does not have a seat in the first 35 appointments made by President Buhari.
Prior to these appointments, Buhari had hinted on his anti-Southeast stance as he promised to favour only the regions that massively voted for him, using the commonwealth, hugely generated from the Southeast. And to further justify the Buhari’s stance, John Odigie-Oyegun, the national chairman of the APC condemned the Southeast region for voting the candidate of their choice, saying that they committed a political blunder “putting all their eggs in one basket”. The Southeast still await Buhari and Oyegun to explain if Buhari is the president of only those regions who voted for him.
In the meantime, the exploited people ask to be allowed to go to where they will be better treated. They organised themselves and conducted themselves in a manner that should be commended, doing their peaceful protests and the government of the day labels them miscreants, secessionists, and now, terrorists and keeps threatening them. It hounds them into prisons in the most unconstitutional way, denying them bail, even in disobedience of a court ruling.
Historically, Biafra has simply been a response of the oppressed, not an agitation for preferential treatment. It is a call to Nigeria to redress the injustices against a people or let them go. Biafra is an acknowledgement of oppression and a pointer to a haven for the oppressed, irrespective of where they come from. The reason Biafra keeps recurring in the Southeast is due to the fact that this same people have been the victims of deprivation throughout the history of independent Nigeria. The level of socio-economic development you could see in the region today was as a result of the individual and collective industry of the Igbo people; no serious contribution from the federal government.
The best the Buhari government could do is to be courageous and seek ways of redressing the injustice against the people of the Southeast instead of the cowardly denial of the issue and hoping the problem will go away with threats upon threats. The least it could do if it does not want to redress this injustice, on the other hand, is to conduct a referendum to know the popular stance of the people and act accordingly. A stitch in time saves nine. The Biafra agitation has been nothing but commendable – no violence, no molestation, no disruption of the public peace – just peaceful protests. It contradicts the fixation that every Biafra is a call for war.
• Udom wrote in from Lagos
BIAFRA: No Nnamdi Kanu, no dialogue with FG —MASSOB, IPOB
December 11, 2015
We won’t be part of negotiations to strengthen Nigeria’s unity – BIM
•Kanu must not die in detention like Yusuf – Rights groups
By Francis Igata, Nwabueze Okonkwo & Chimaobi Nwaiwu
ENUGU—The ceasefire declared by the Movement for the Actualization of Sovereign State of Biafra, MASSOB, and the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, to give room for a dialogue with the Federal Government appears headed for the rocks.
The groups are peeved by reports that former governor of Akwa-Ibom State, Senator Goodswill Akpabio led a delegation accompanied by some northern elites on behalf of MASSOB to Federal Government to broker a truce.
Consequently, they said they the only way they would be part of the dialogue is if detained IPOB leader and Director of Radio Biafra, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu is part of it.
This came as the Chief Ralph Uwazuruike-led Biafra Independent Movement, BIM, dissociated self from any negotiation to strength the unity of Nigeria and vowed to actualize the Republic of Biafra
Meanwhile, a coalition of human rights groups in the South-East zone cautioned the Federal Government against allowing Nnamdi Kanu to be murdered in the captivity of the Department of State Service, DSS, the way deceased leader of Boko Haram sect, Yusuf Mohammed was killed in Police custody.
Also, residents of Onitsha and its environs had appealed to President Muhammadu Buhari to prevail on the Nigerian Armed Forces to dismantle the road blocks in Anambra State, which were mounted after the killing of nine people in the state over MASSOB and IPOB protests, citing increasing inhuman treatments meted out to innocent citizens by the military men.
Any dialogue without Nnamdi won’t yield fruits
Speaking on the proposed dialogue, in Enugu, yesteday, MASSOB Director of Information, Edson Samuel, said: “We are shocked that Akpabio, who disowned MASSOB at the inception of this demonstration, led some northern leaders to broker truce on our behalf. We do not know them, neither can we identify with them because any person moving to dialogue between us and Federal Government must first meet with us and know our demands.
“This demonstration is strictly anchored by MASSOB, IPOB and Akpabio, working with his cohort, Dozie Ikedife, have shown hatred for Nnamdi Kanu. We make haste to disown them.
“Ikedife has his own agenda and belief in the constitution of Nigeria, which we do not believe in. MASSOB and Biafra do not have faith in Nigerian constitution. The Nigerian constitution is a complete fraud, that is why we are protesting to opt out. The framers of the constitution never consulted Ndigbo when it was crafted.
On Biafra we stand —BIM
The BIM, a former faction of MASSOB, yesterday, gave reasons it would not be part of any negotiation intended to strengthen Nigeria’s national unity and stability, but rather the one that will ensure the actualization of Biafra.
BIM said it had equally distanced self from the outcome of an emergency meeting in Asaba, Delta State and the one earlier held by the Supreme Elders Council of IPOB at Sheraton Hotels and Towers, Abuja, Wednesday, December 9, 2015, where they agreed that the recent demonstrations in the Southeast and parts of South-South were agitations for the right to “call ourselves Biafrans within the Nigerian equation.”
In a press statement issued in Onitsha, Anambra State, BIM’s Deputy Director for Information, Mazi Chris Anierobi Mocha, said such discussions ‘’with our oppressors have a sinister motive behind it,’’ adding, “our position is to achieve a separate country with the name and tittle: ‘Republic of Biafra, no more no less.’
Don’t kill Kanu in detention like Yusuf, rights groups tell FG
Cautioning the the government to ensure the safety of Nnamdi Kanu in detention, a coalition of human rights groups based in the South-East zone given the provisions of Section 1 (3) of the 1999 Constitution, Section 27 (1) of the Terrorism Prevention Act of 2011 as amended, Kanu’s detention and investigation by DSS over involvement in terrorism and terrorism financing are illegal.
In a press statement entitled: ‘Before Nnamdi Kanu Is Murdered In DSS Captivity & Goes The Way of Yusuf Mohammed,’ the coalition further noted that by Section 35 (4) (a) (b) of the 1999 Constitution (right to personal liberty); the same Section 27 (1) of Terrorism Prevention Act of 2011 as amended (detention of accused citizen for 90 days and above or perpetual pre-trial detention), is also null and void.
Signed by its senior activist, Emeka Umeagbalasi, the coalition in the statement noted that the Supreme Court of Nigeria’s landmark verdict in: Abacha and Others vs Fawehinmi (2001) AHRLR 172 (NgSC 2000); on the supremacy of the African Charter on Human & Peoples Rights, ACHPR, over ordinary legislations in Nigeria, Section 27 (1) of Terrorism Prevention Act of 2011 as amended; is expressly ultra vires, illegal and illegitimate.
The coalition comprises the International Society for Civil Liberties & the Rule of Law (Intersociety), Anambra State Branch of the Civil Liberties Organization, CLO, Centre for Human Rights & Peace Advocacy, CHRPA, Human Rights Club, HRC, (a project of LRRDC), Southeast Good Governance Forum, SGGF, Forum for Equity, Justice & Defence of Human Rights, FEJDHR, Society Advocacy Watch Project, SPAW, Anambra Human Rights Forum, AHRF, International Solidarity, INTERSOLIDARITY, for Peace & Human Rights Initiative, Street Law Africa, LawAfrica, and Igbo Ekunie Initiative, IEI, (a pan-Igbo rights campaigner).
Inhuman treatment: Onitsha residents, CD seek dismanantleing of military points in Anambra
Residents of Onitsha and its environs have appealed to President Muhammadu Buhari to prevail on the Nigerian Armed Forces to dismantle military road blocks in Anambra State erected on account of the pro-Biafra protests.
Speaking with Vanguard, Mr. Chinonso Ukaegbu, a trader said that normalcy had returned to the commercial city of Onitsha and its environs and there was no need for the joint military task force operations in the state.
“The IPOB and MASSOB activists are no more protesting in the state. They have also announced the suspension of their protests, and Onitsha is back to normalcy.Why should the people be subjected to dehumanizing act of raising our hands or running past the check points irrespective of age and status?” he said.
The Campaign for Democracy also made similar call, saying that there was no war or tension in Anambra State and therefore, people should not be subjected to dehumanizing situations where they had to raise their hands from three poles to the check points mounted by the Army and the Police.
Nigerian Guardian
December 9, 2015 7:00 am
I commend the Editorial Board of The Guardian for your Editorial of Tuesday, 24 November, 2015, titled: ‘The agitation of Biafra’ which brought the issue of the Biafra protests to limelight, even when many other institutions that have the capacity of providing a platform for a meaningful discourse on the matter shy away from that responsibility. While I agree with some of the assertions in the editorial,
I am of the view that this editorial trivialised the cause of the agitation – the marginalisation of the southeastern region of the country – to borrow the words of Col. Joseph Achuzie, in general and the political subjection of the Igbo race in particular.
It paid little attention to how we came here – from one-third to five of 36 (one-seventh) within 30 years, courtesy of mere fiats from dictators of northern extraction. These fiats were never done with any positive consideration of the Igbo race.
Ever since the civil war, the government of Nigeria has maintained a belligerent posture against the southeastern region, only acquiescing it just what it thinks would enable it hold down the Igbo agitation. If we excuse all that happened during the war as part of the war, what can anyone say of various Nigerian policies since the end of the war?
At the end of the war, the government of Gowon exchanged the deposits of Igbos in the banks prior to the war for not more than twenty pounds per depositor. Also in pursuance of the administration’s reconstruction agenda, Gowon did his work in Lagos despite the fact that the war was fought in the Eastern region.
Another area to look at is the creation of states – from the four regions of Eastern, Mid-Western, Northern, Southern in 1963, to 12 states 1967 by General Yakubu Gowon; to 19 states in 1976 by General Murtala Muhammed; to 21 states in 1987 and 30 states in 1991, by General Ibrahim Babangida, and to 36 states in 1996 by Gen Sani Abacha? In the current composition, the North has 19 states representing 52.7 per cent; the then Eastern has nine or 25 per cent, the then Southern has six or 16.6 per cent and the then Mid-Western has two or 5.5 per cent. Senatorial constituencies, which are allotted three to each state, further shows the skewed power structure in favour of the Northern region.
A look at the creation of the six geopolitical regions of the country, another political structure that is used in distributing the country’s commonwealth further shows the marginalisation of the southeastern region to the benefit of the North. The six geopolitical regions were distributed three to the then North, one to the then South, one for the then Mid-West and a part of the then East, and one for the then East. The same scenario is played out in the creation of local governments areas (LGAs) in Nigeria, which were also arbitrarily done by the same dictators. Of the 774 LGAs, the then Eastern Region has 24.9 per cent, Mid-Western has 5.5 per cent, Southern has 17 per cent, and the North has 51.8 per cent.
Like the allocation of resources in Nigeria, the allocation of opportunities is also along this flawed structure. Most people from the then Biafra lost years of schooling as a result of the war that was fought on its territory but the Nigerian government did nothing to cushion the effect of this loss. It instead promulgated the federal character policy that supposedly intended to give equal opportunities to the states arbitrarily created by the northerners as against the constitutionally created regions.
To further underscore the ulterior motive for this promulgation, the political office holders, who have been predominantly north, pick and choose when to apply this policy so that the North becomes the major beneficiaries. They apply it in academic, and not in job, opportunities. A case in point is that apart from the fact that no person from the Southeast occupies any of the five major political seats in the country, it does not have a seat in the first 35 appointments made by President Buhari.
Prior to these appointments, Buhari had hinted on his anti-Southeast stance as he promised to favour only the regions that massively voted for him, using the commonwealth, hugely generated from the Southeast. And to further justify the Buhari’s stance, John Odigie-Oyegun, the national chairman of the APC condemned the Southeast region for voting the candidate of their choice, saying that they committed a political blunder “putting all their eggs in one basket”. The Southeast still await Buhari and Oyegun to explain if Buhari is the president of only those regions who voted for him.
In the meantime, the exploited people ask to be allowed to go to where they will be better treated. They organised themselves and conducted themselves in a manner that should be commended, doing their peaceful protests and the government of the day labels them miscreants, secessionists, and now, terrorists and keeps threatening them. It hounds them into prisons in the most unconstitutional way, denying them bail, even in disobedience of a court ruling.
Historically, Biafra has simply been a response of the oppressed, not an agitation for preferential treatment. It is a call to Nigeria to redress the injustices against a people or let them go. Biafra is an acknowledgement of oppression and a pointer to a haven for the oppressed, irrespective of where they come from. The reason Biafra keeps recurring in the Southeast is due to the fact that this same people have been the victims of deprivation throughout the history of independent Nigeria. The level of socio-economic development you could see in the region today was as a result of the individual and collective industry of the Igbo people; no serious contribution from the federal government.
The best the Buhari government could do is to be courageous and seek ways of redressing the injustice against the people of the Southeast instead of the cowardly denial of the issue and hoping the problem will go away with threats upon threats. The least it could do if it does not want to redress this injustice, on the other hand, is to conduct a referendum to know the popular stance of the people and act accordingly. A stitch in time saves nine. The Biafra agitation has been nothing but commendable – no violence, no molestation, no disruption of the public peace – just peaceful protests. It contradicts the fixation that every Biafra is a call for war.
• Udom wrote in from Lagos
BIAFRA: No Nnamdi Kanu, no dialogue with FG —MASSOB, IPOB
December 11, 2015
We won’t be part of negotiations to strengthen Nigeria’s unity – BIM
•Kanu must not die in detention like Yusuf – Rights groups
By Francis Igata, Nwabueze Okonkwo & Chimaobi Nwaiwu
ENUGU—The ceasefire declared by the Movement for the Actualization of Sovereign State of Biafra, MASSOB, and the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, to give room for a dialogue with the Federal Government appears headed for the rocks.
The groups are peeved by reports that former governor of Akwa-Ibom State, Senator Goodswill Akpabio led a delegation accompanied by some northern elites on behalf of MASSOB to Federal Government to broker a truce.
Consequently, they said they the only way they would be part of the dialogue is if detained IPOB leader and Director of Radio Biafra, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu is part of it.
This came as the Chief Ralph Uwazuruike-led Biafra Independent Movement, BIM, dissociated self from any negotiation to strength the unity of Nigeria and vowed to actualize the Republic of Biafra
Meanwhile, a coalition of human rights groups in the South-East zone cautioned the Federal Government against allowing Nnamdi Kanu to be murdered in the captivity of the Department of State Service, DSS, the way deceased leader of Boko Haram sect, Yusuf Mohammed was killed in Police custody.
Also, residents of Onitsha and its environs had appealed to President Muhammadu Buhari to prevail on the Nigerian Armed Forces to dismantle the road blocks in Anambra State, which were mounted after the killing of nine people in the state over MASSOB and IPOB protests, citing increasing inhuman treatments meted out to innocent citizens by the military men.
Any dialogue without Nnamdi won’t yield fruits
Speaking on the proposed dialogue, in Enugu, yesteday, MASSOB Director of Information, Edson Samuel, said: “We are shocked that Akpabio, who disowned MASSOB at the inception of this demonstration, led some northern leaders to broker truce on our behalf. We do not know them, neither can we identify with them because any person moving to dialogue between us and Federal Government must first meet with us and know our demands.
“This demonstration is strictly anchored by MASSOB, IPOB and Akpabio, working with his cohort, Dozie Ikedife, have shown hatred for Nnamdi Kanu. We make haste to disown them.
“Ikedife has his own agenda and belief in the constitution of Nigeria, which we do not believe in. MASSOB and Biafra do not have faith in Nigerian constitution. The Nigerian constitution is a complete fraud, that is why we are protesting to opt out. The framers of the constitution never consulted Ndigbo when it was crafted.
On Biafra we stand —BIM
The BIM, a former faction of MASSOB, yesterday, gave reasons it would not be part of any negotiation intended to strengthen Nigeria’s national unity and stability, but rather the one that will ensure the actualization of Biafra.
BIM said it had equally distanced self from the outcome of an emergency meeting in Asaba, Delta State and the one earlier held by the Supreme Elders Council of IPOB at Sheraton Hotels and Towers, Abuja, Wednesday, December 9, 2015, where they agreed that the recent demonstrations in the Southeast and parts of South-South were agitations for the right to “call ourselves Biafrans within the Nigerian equation.”
In a press statement issued in Onitsha, Anambra State, BIM’s Deputy Director for Information, Mazi Chris Anierobi Mocha, said such discussions ‘’with our oppressors have a sinister motive behind it,’’ adding, “our position is to achieve a separate country with the name and tittle: ‘Republic of Biafra, no more no less.’
Don’t kill Kanu in detention like Yusuf, rights groups tell FG
Cautioning the the government to ensure the safety of Nnamdi Kanu in detention, a coalition of human rights groups based in the South-East zone given the provisions of Section 1 (3) of the 1999 Constitution, Section 27 (1) of the Terrorism Prevention Act of 2011 as amended, Kanu’s detention and investigation by DSS over involvement in terrorism and terrorism financing are illegal.
In a press statement entitled: ‘Before Nnamdi Kanu Is Murdered In DSS Captivity & Goes The Way of Yusuf Mohammed,’ the coalition further noted that by Section 35 (4) (a) (b) of the 1999 Constitution (right to personal liberty); the same Section 27 (1) of Terrorism Prevention Act of 2011 as amended (detention of accused citizen for 90 days and above or perpetual pre-trial detention), is also null and void.
Signed by its senior activist, Emeka Umeagbalasi, the coalition in the statement noted that the Supreme Court of Nigeria’s landmark verdict in: Abacha and Others vs Fawehinmi (2001) AHRLR 172 (NgSC 2000); on the supremacy of the African Charter on Human & Peoples Rights, ACHPR, over ordinary legislations in Nigeria, Section 27 (1) of Terrorism Prevention Act of 2011 as amended; is expressly ultra vires, illegal and illegitimate.
The coalition comprises the International Society for Civil Liberties & the Rule of Law (Intersociety), Anambra State Branch of the Civil Liberties Organization, CLO, Centre for Human Rights & Peace Advocacy, CHRPA, Human Rights Club, HRC, (a project of LRRDC), Southeast Good Governance Forum, SGGF, Forum for Equity, Justice & Defence of Human Rights, FEJDHR, Society Advocacy Watch Project, SPAW, Anambra Human Rights Forum, AHRF, International Solidarity, INTERSOLIDARITY, for Peace & Human Rights Initiative, Street Law Africa, LawAfrica, and Igbo Ekunie Initiative, IEI, (a pan-Igbo rights campaigner).
Inhuman treatment: Onitsha residents, CD seek dismanantleing of military points in Anambra
Residents of Onitsha and its environs have appealed to President Muhammadu Buhari to prevail on the Nigerian Armed Forces to dismantle military road blocks in Anambra State erected on account of the pro-Biafra protests.
Speaking with Vanguard, Mr. Chinonso Ukaegbu, a trader said that normalcy had returned to the commercial city of Onitsha and its environs and there was no need for the joint military task force operations in the state.
“The IPOB and MASSOB activists are no more protesting in the state. They have also announced the suspension of their protests, and Onitsha is back to normalcy.Why should the people be subjected to dehumanizing act of raising our hands or running past the check points irrespective of age and status?” he said.
The Campaign for Democracy also made similar call, saying that there was no war or tension in Anambra State and therefore, people should not be subjected to dehumanizing situations where they had to raise their hands from three poles to the check points mounted by the Army and the Police.
No comments:
Post a Comment