Biafran: Nigeria federation must developed vested interests in the case between Mazi Nnamdi Kanu KANU

Biafra is the beginning of the end? 

By Makanjuola Adigun Muhammed

The current state of the Biafran struggle for self-determination has transcended the level the Nigeria political power brokers can contend with. The case has snowballed into an international matter which is capable of questioning the future of the Nigerian state and its sovereignty. The on-going case between the federal Government of Nigeria versus Nnamdi Kanu over the trumped up allegation that the latter committed treasonable felony, for which he and the four others were arraigned at the federal high court of the federal Republic of Nigeria, and later alleged to have jumped bail has taken a new dimension. But as it was widely reported in the Nigerian media and from principal witnesses and the lawyer of the foremost Biafran leader that the security of the state with all state security and war apparatus invading the house of the IPOB leader at Afararukwu in Abia state with the intention to eliminate him and in the process State violence was visited on the entire community where lives were massively lost and the state of the safety of the IPOB leader and his whereabouts was unknown after the military operation.

Subsequently after the above scenario, the court reconvened to continue with the trials only for the case to get twisted when the court insisted that the IPOB leader must appear in court to face trail over the case brought against him by the prosecutor which in this case is the Federal Government of Nigeria. The argument for and against over why the IPOB leader who later appeared in Israel and have been making series of broadcasting statements on Radio on the events surrounding how the state, some Igbo leaders, conspired with the bench to get him eliminated while he is still under the protective bail of the court of which he had vowed never to appear to again to answer the allegation of treasonable felony placed on him by the Nigerian state and he continues to vehemently insist that he has committed no crime for which he could be accused let alone treasonable felony, as what he is agitating for ,is the freedom of his people under the concept of self-determination and secession which is well embedded in the Nigerian constitution, extant laws which is the common laws and international conventions, treaties and conference resolutions . He made series of revelations concerning the Nigerian leadership and how and why he, could never get justice in a Nigerian court presided over by a Nigerian judge.

Following Nnamdi Kanu’s decision not to appear in court again, there has been series of court arguments in which at a point the court was contemplating forfeiting the bail bond of the sureties that stood in for his bail and there were counter opposition to this intending decision of the court that eventually made one of the sureties suing the judge of the court to another division of the court seeking for his right to be protected by his court. This action was followed by subsequent Binta Nyako’s court ruling to absolve the sureties of any wrong doings and decided to revoke the bail right granted the IPOB leader and issued a bench warrant arrest against anywhere the IPOB leader is sited and be brought to court to face his trials. This above order of the court was made against all the entreaties by legal representations of the IPOB leader and the others to present the actual information concerning why their clients could no longer appear in court, every attempts by the defendants representatives to present these facts to the court of what the security operatives did which led to the disappearance of their client was rebuffed by the trial Judge.

The reaction of the above insistence of the court that the embattled IPOB Leader must face trial took a new twist when he declared in one of his radio broadcast on Radio Biafra, London that he is not a Nigerian and he is suing the Nigerian Government to a court in the British court challenging the decision of the Nigerian court to revoked his bail and many other reliefs that he may be demanding to advance the course of the Biafran struggle.

In his last broadcast on Radio Biafra, the Biafran Leader exposed some section of the Nigerian laws predicated on some sections of the provision of 1999 Nigerian constitution and some existing laws that legalized his demand for a separate Biafran State out of Nigeria. He spoke so confidently about the justiciability of these laws as they are written in Black and white which formed parts of the common laws of the federation of Nigeria and no court in the country has any powers to assumed any jurisdiction concerning these sets laws when they are connected to process for demand for outright secession or struggle for self-determination for a separate homeland out of Nigeria, once the process do not contravene the process laid down in the criminal code of the federal Republic of Nigeria. 

The citation of some of these laws that he cited are:

1, That under the Shagari administration in 1983, there was a law passed by the National Assembly in Lagos during that political era titled “The Law of the Federation of Nigeria” which enable any Region or a people, who felt that they are political, economic and socio-cultural oppressed within Nigeria State, to be assisted by the government of the country to freely exited the Nigerian federation to seek for separate homeland where the above deprivation can be redressed.

2. That there was a decree promulgated under the general Babagida administration titled “The Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, cap 10” The above law re-consolidated the rights of secession and self-determination to any people and parts of Nigeria, which was initially asserted in the 1983 laws, can comfortable pullout of the Nigerian federation with the supports of the Nigerian State.

3. That there was also consolidation of the above two laws that legalized the calls and struggle for secession and calls for self-determination under Nigerian common laws passed under the democratic administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo titled “The Law of the Federation of Nigeria” passed in 2004. This Act powered Nigeria to be a state party positively with all technical assistance to any Region or peoples in Nigeria seriously advocating for exit out of the Nigerian federation. But from all indications, it could be assumed that it is the criminal class political elites, traditional rulers and business and corporate professionals along North and South divide who are the albatross and the stumbling block to the enforcement of these above laws to segments and groups who had long rejected the unworkable and fraudulent National unity that has bought deaths, genocide, ethnic cleansing, pains, under-development, poverty, massive uncontained corruption practices within the public and private sectors at all strata of the Nigerian society.

on the 29th of April, 2019. Nigeria’s legal representation will be expected to make appearance at the hearing and trials of this historic case. Many paradox box and hidden secrets which were initially not made known to the Nigeria people will be uncovered under oath. And the legality for demanding for one separate country out of Nigeria will be tested. All Nigerian laws that supported the calls for self-determination in the country will be tested. All international treaties and conventions both at the international and at the regional level which Nigeria is a signatories to will be invoked. What amount to acts of treasonable felony within the context of the Nigeria criminal code system? Why the South and the North be run or criminal code versus penal code system if the country is truly a united federation and why the federation created by the British should not be urgently terminated? Why the amalgamation document of 1914, if such document existed, must be presented in the British court on the 29th of this month in the UK court and the legality of such document and its contents having any legal effect of the law binding consequences further on the remnants of the succeeding generations who are now the victims of such evil amalgamation? And whether the independence constitutions and the subsequent ones, are subjected to the popular endorsement of those who were referred as Nigerians via a fallout of an outcomes of popular referendum.

All self-determination and separatists in Nigeria must developed vested interests in the case between Nnamdi Kanu and the federal Republic of Nigeria, later this month in the United Kingdom and be ready to take their stand over the fallout of the case in question. Our problems as a people started by the British in 1914, may also be finally be settled in the British court once and for all.