IPOB Women Rivers State Protest

NO ONE NIGERIA : Sowore makes shocking revelation on how DSS favours arrested Boko Haram Commanders, treated him

Sowore, who is the 2019 Presidential candidate of the African Action Congress, AAC, made the disclosure when he appeared before a Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday.

The co-convener of the RevolutionNow Movement, Omoyele Sowore, has disclosed that the Department of State Services, DSS, refused him from making calls while granting arrested Boko Haram Boko Haram commanders access to telephone, while in custody.

The Federal Government re-arraigned Sowore for conspiracy to commit treason and insulting President Muhammadu Buhari.

According to Sowore: “I am not allowed to see sunshine. I have not been outside except today. I am happy people are staying strong.

“I have no doubt this will come to an end in favour of the Nigerian people. Whether you like it or not, the revolution will happen. It is only a matter of time. They gave me no access to telephone. No TV. No newspapers.

“What is interesting is that Boko Haram commanders who are engaged in high-level terrorism have access to telephone, TV and even cable in their cells. So you wonder which one is better: a freedom fighter or a terrorist.”

BIAFRANS DSS speaks on ‘arrest’ of journalist, Chido Onumah at Abuja airport

 Chido Onumah. yesterday upon his return to Nigeria from Spain where he recently bagged a doctorate in communication studies.

Reacting to his arrest, the secret police explained that it only interacted with him on a t-shirt he wore on his way into Abuja town from the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport.

The Department of State Services, DSS, has reacted to the reported arrest of a journalist, Chido Onumah.

In a statement signed by its spokesperson, Peter Afunanya, DSS said the wordings on the t-shirt: “We are all Biafrans,” was capable of attracting mob attack to Onumah.

The statement reads: “To set the records right, Onumah was never arrested by the Service. He was rather engaged in an interaction during which an act of his capable of undermining public order and national security was explained to him.

“On his arrival at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja, on 29th September, 2019, it was discovered that Onumah wore a T-shirt with WE ARE ALL BIAFRANS inscription on it. With credible intelligence that he might be a subject of mob attack if allowed to go into town in same cloth, the Service invited him and drew his attention to the implications of his probable (un)intended action.

“It was strongly believed that an attack on Onumah would have sparked ethno-religious reprisals with dire consequences for law and order and public safety in the country. He understood the issues and pledged not to engage in activities that may cause disaffection in Abuja and the country at large. He subsequently removed the cloth with the inciting symbols and inscriptions and agreed not to use it.

“The interaction between Onumah and the Service held in a convivial atmosphere. He appreciated the courtesies extended to him. Afterwards, the Service arranged for him to go back to his accommodation in town.

“It is hoped that this clarification has dispelled the erroneous claims and reportage that he was arrested. The Service acted within the confines of its mandate and only carried out its routine security duty that could have been discharged by a similar agency in any part of the world. It is not out of place for concerned security agencies to have sought clarification from a traveller concerning a subject of security interest.

“The DSS reaffirms its avowed commitment to the rule of law and protection of citizens and national critical assets.”

nigeria police accused me of being a Biafran holding Nigerian passport –Onumah

                                                    

After such a long flight, I was accosted by DSS operatives and made to wait for two hours in their office at the airport and another four hours at their headquarters in Abuja for something I think it was not worth the trouble they put me to. At the end of the day, it turned out to be about the inscription on the T-shirt that I was wearing, which was the title of my book, ‘We are all Biafrans.’

I still don’t know exactly what they wanted to achieve by arresting me.     Although I visited Spain, I had come in from Gothenburg in Sweden. I flew from Gothenburg to Frankfurt and from there to Abuja. It was a long trip and I was really tired. I simply wanted to get home and have some rest. A few friends of mine were visiting Nigeria from Accra, Ghana and I needed to be with them. We had scheduled a dinner for that Sunday. So it was quite shocking that I couldn’t make it.

Initially, they took me to their office and the first question the officer there asked me was: “You are a Biafran, why do you have a Nigerian passport?” I replied, “I beg your pardon, I’m a Nigerian and that is why I have a Nigerian passport. There is no country like Biafra. So I can’t possibly hold a Biafran passport.”

The man said, “But that’s not what is written on your shirt.” And I told him that ‘We are all Biafrans’ is the title of my book.         

Yes, it was quite troubling. After the encounter, what bothered me was the restriction of press freedom and the rights of Nigerians to move around and to associate with other people. So we moved from worrying about who you meet with, what kind of people you associate with, whether you are able to go to a park to congregate and have a conversation or not, as well as what you write, to security agencies accosting you for what you are carrying, what kind of phone you are using and what you are wearing. In the end, he took the shirt from me and insisted that I can’t wear it ever again.

I see it as an infringement on my fundamental rights. It’s not about me really; it could be any other person and the way forward. Anyone could be arrested if they think that what you are wearing is offensive. They said something to the effect that they got a tip-off from some fellow passengers on the same plane that brought me to Nigeria, who feared that there was a plan to disturb the peace and that I was going to be part of it. Based on their press release, they said they were trying to protect me because some people had planned to attack me. Mentally I checked their claims, wondering why anybody would plan to attack me. I told them that I had worn the T-shirt for three years and they were shocked.

The incident called to question the so-called intelligence of the intelligence agency. This book has been out for three years and the T-shirt was first worn on the day the book was launched, which was on May 30, 2016.     

I wear this T-shirt regularly. In fact, it has become like a national dress to me. I wear it whenever I am travelling out of the country and whenever I am coming back. Most weekends, that’s what I wear, over a pair of jeans trousers, to my office. When they heard this, my interrogators feigned surprise, as if they didn’t know in the first place.

What I found quite strange was the fact that they couldn’t link the book to the T-shirt. I told them several times that the inscription on the shirt was the title of my book, but it didn’t resonate with them. This got me wondering. When the book was launched in 2016, some prominent Nigerians, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, who was the special guest of honour, attended the event. Almost all the major national newspapers had the story on their front pages. I was surprised that an organisation like the DSS didn’t have any information on the event.

If the DSS operatives had any knowledge of the book, perhaps, they wouldn’t have asked me some of the questions they were asking. What I learnt from their reactions is that they had concluded that I was an ‘anarchist’ who had arrived in the country to foment trouble by wearing the T-shirt. As a result, they had already decided to stop me by any means necessary.                                            

That is the impression because one of them said to me, “Why we are trying to protect you is because if you wear the shirt into town, somebody would attack you and there would be reprisal from the Biafran people and the whole city would go up in flames.” I told him that I was neither a Biafran nor a sympathiser of Biafra and I didn’t belong to MASSOB.

 In fact, both MASSOB and IPOB people see me as their sworn enemy because they think my book doesn’t propagate their ideals and ideas. So for me, mixing with them was really uncalled for. There is a sense in which I think that by seeing me in that T-shirt, they believed I was a supporter of IPOB. I spent a long time trying to convince them that they were wrong.

No, they didn’t. I am a veteran of this process. I am used to the DSS.  I have been a guest of the DSS, even as a student of the University of Calabar. As a journalist, I have had a run-in with the operatives of the agency. So I know the drill. I know how they operate.

When they asked me to follow them at the airport, I didn’t resist or create a scene. I simply went with them and when I got into the room, I started reading a book and waited for them to ask their questions. Because of the way I conducted myself, perhaps, they didn’t intimidate me. They didn’t raise their voice or shout at me. We only disagreed. They would raise a point and I would say no, I don’t think that is right.                                                                                      

There is no doubt about that, but the other dangerous aspect of this, which I think people need to pay attention to, is that the serious disconnect between the so-called security agencies and the public they were supposed to serve almost borders on paranoia.

You pride yourself as the foremost security agency in the country, but you need to have intelligence, you need to do your research, have background information. You can’t just go around picking up people randomly and denying them their fundamental rights in the name of maintaining law and order. You simply invoked your constitutional responsibility to maintain law and order when there is no basis for such arrest. So we have to worry not just about what we write or say, but also what we wear.

In this case, there was really no basis for arresting me. I am not guilty of what they were trying to accuse me of. I don’t support IPOB, I don’t support the agitation for Biafra and I don’t belong to any of those fringe groups seeking dismemberment of the country. So there was no basis for taking me in for questioning.                                                                                                                                 

Well again, it just calls for vigilance. Part of it was displayed on Sunday. I really commend Nigerians, especially young Nigerians on social media. The fact that people rallied round and sent out lot of tweets contributed to my release. They (DSS) were willing to keep me till Monday, but they were under severe pressure. They buckled and started talking to me until we reached an agreement and understanding.

No, I didn’t believe their claim and I let them know it. I told them that I had been putting on the T-shirt for three years and nobody had ever questioned me. They kept trying to what they w explain what they were doing, but I didn’t think it had anything to do with the fact that the present Federal Government cares about its citizens.

Maybe not directly, but in the broader picture of things, it is not just about me or Sowore; it is the larger problem of wanting to control the thought process of people so as to stop them from expressing themselves.          

I was responding to their questions and I queried why, in this era, journalists are being detained and asked them to show pictures on their phones and other flimsy reasons for the detention of journalists.

I don’t know. They had the phone in their possession. I can’t say what they did with it. I have not really had time to check it. They had my passport and went through it.

I think it is. I mentioned my own case, Sowore’s trial and the detention of James Ebiri for two years. Other people have been being detained by security officials for posting things against state governors on social media. And if the space, in terms of civil liberty, is really shrinking, then citizens need to rise and do something about it. Those who try to limit other people’s liberty will continue to do so unless the people say ‘enough is enough, we can’t take this anymore.’ If they don’t do that, those who seek to oppress them and limit their rights will have a field day.         

No, it will not. I have a new book that will put in proper perspective the crises we have been facing in the last five years or so, including the issue of revolution. Nothing is going to stop me.

I think it is important, but the nature of the revolution is what we have to sit down and discuss. We do need a revolution. We need to have a radical transformation of the Nigerian society. That is the only way we can move forward as a nation.

IPOB : Why South East may embrace IPOB in 2023 – Ezeife

                                               

He also said that the agitation and crusade being carried out by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and his group for a Biafra referendum were forced on Ndigbo by the country.

Former Governor of Anambra State, Chukwuemeka Ezeife, has said that the elderly people in South East may embrace the Nnamdi Kanu-led Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, if the other parts of Nigeria conspire and deny the zone Presidency in 2023.

Ezeife accused the Nigerian government of making deliberate efforts towards pushing the Igbos out of the country by denying them occupying sensitive positions including leading any of the security agencies.

He told Vanguard: “You can’t beat a person and say don’t cry. What Nnamdi Kanu and others are doing is crying because they are beaten and they are doing it in a way that is non-violent.

“Therefore, Nigerians should appreciate their method. I am happy the rest of the world, Europe, European Union, they met with Nnamdi Kanu and they saw point with what he was saying.

“The (United Nations) UN also met with Nnamdi Kanu in Switzerland, I don’t know whether they have changed their mind they invited him to the United Nations General Assembly, but now having met with him in Switzerland, they may not meet him again in New York.

“So, I think Nnamdi Kanu is doing what is forced on us (Ndigbo) because some of us believe that we should find out more mature ways of going about it.

“But the ideal is very lawful, they are crying for a referendum, that is a democracy. I think if Igbo people are denied the Presidency in 2023, then, no matter how unpopular IPOB may be among the older people everybody may rush it.”

On the 2023 Presidency and the agitation by the South West and the North to go for the plum position, he said: “If you want to deny them (Ndigbo) 2023 Presidency, then deny them citizenship of Nigeria.

“I am feeling that it is because of rejection that other Nigerians reject Igbo Presidency that (Mallam Nasir) el-Rufai wants to be President, that (Asiwaju Bola) Tinubu wants to be President and it will favour them. If that happens, the real meaning is that the Igbos should cease being citizens of Nigeria.

“That there is no point belonging where you are rejected. One rejected does not reject himself. Among those who reject you, you don’t want to force yourself to belong.

“So, there is this talk about Biafra. IPOB is promoting Biafra because of various problems and punishments against Ndigbo. Because of many problems cause the Igbos in Nigeria, they are trying to leave. But the Federal Government of Nigeria has been very busy pushing the Igbos out of Nigeria.

“We are traders, we import like containers etc, but when our people import things, the things are seized and auctioned. Ibeto was one of the strongest people in cement, after some time, he was crippled. Instead of going up, he was going back to give advantage to Non-Igbo.”

call for prosecution of Obasanjo, Gowon, others

In suit No. FHC/EN/CS/103/2019, coming up on October 2, 2019, the pro-Biafra group wants the court to decide on issues relating to self-determination, regional autonomy, and roles the respondents played during the civil war, referendum, among other things.

A new group known as Customary Government of the Indigenous People of Biafra, CG-IPOB, emerged on Wednesday and dragged former Head of State General Yakubu Gowon, rtd, former President Olusegun Obasanjo and Attorney-General of the Federation to a Federal High Court sitting in Enugu.

The group also wants the court to determine issues bordering on the enforcement of rights of ‘Biafrans’ in their lawful pursuit for self-determination, referendum and right to establish an autonomous Biafran State within the Nigerian State as practiced by the Scots in the United Kingdom.

The CG-IPOB is led by Anambra-based lawyer, Emeka Adolf Emekesiri.

In an ex parte application, the group sought the leave of the court and jurisdiction to commence a suit against the defendants who were ex-Head of State, President of Nigeria and Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Nigeria.

In an originating summons, the plaintiff is praying the court to determine whether the instruction given to members of the claimant by President Muhammadu Buhari, on March 5, 2016, on Al Jazeera Television that it should organize themselves and vote to have a State within a State which the group said it had accepted and complied with by organizing themselves, had created an obligation on the defendants from which the defendants could no longer withdraw.

The group also asked the court to determine whether by the instruction of the defendants which the members CG-IPOB had accepted and complied with as aforesaid, now had the right to conduct their referendum and vote to have its State of Biafra as a self-governing autonomous region within the Nigerian State, just like Scotland governs itself within the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

“Whether, notwithstanding and in the absence of any directions, instructions, promises or offers from the defendants, the applicants have the legal and inalienable right to self-determination pursuant to Articles 19 – 25 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 (Cap 10 LFN 1990)

“Whether it is an offence and unlawful contrary to any provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 or of any other law whatsoever for the remnants of the Biafrans who survived the war with their descendants to identify themselves as Biafrans by indigenous identity, and display their native flags and emblems and Biafran trademarks on their properties and products as they do now whilst remaining loyal to the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as Nigerian citizens.

“Whether it is lawful for the Defendants to harass, molest, arrest and detain the applicants for identifying themselves as Biafrans with their native emblems.”

Other things the group also wants the court to decide are: “whether the amalgamation of the applicants with the peoples of other ethnic nationalities in the South and North by the British Government to form one country called Nigeria was with the consent and agreement of the indigenous peoples of the lands.

“And if the answer is in the negative, whether the Order-in-Council 1910 – 1913 made by the British Government to create Nigeria in 1914 was null and void ab initio for lacking legitimacy as it could not form the basis of the Nigerian Constitution thereby, rendering the amalgamation invalid.   

“Whether by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1963 which took effect on 1st October 1963 and remained in force until midnight of 30th September 1979, the defendants were right to seize and confiscate the assets, properties, money, and all the treasures belonging to members of the claimant by promulgating the Abandoned Properties Act of 28th September 1979, while the 1963 Constitution was in force, being more than nine years after the war and after the declaration of “One Nigeria” while regarding members of the claimant as Nigerian citizens but depriving them of their properties, money, and assets.

“And if the answer is in the negative, whether the defendants are still justified to withhold the said money, properties and assets belonging to members of the claimant.

“Whether the defendants were justified to violate the International Humanitarian Law and the Laws of War known as the Geneva Convention 1949 (to which the defendants acceded to and ratified on 20th June 1961) by bombing the Biafran civilians, killing the Biafran civilians and using starvation to kill the children, women and the elderly of the civilian population of the indigenous people of Biafra in the war of 1967 – 1970 in order to win the war.

“Whether the right of self-determination provided under Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act overrides and supersedes the provisions of Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 pursuant to the Judicial Authority in the case of IGP v ANPP (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1066) 457 at 500, Para B–C.

“Whether it is lawful for the defendants to marginalise, persecute and discriminate against the claimant’s region of the South East and South South of Nigeria by refusing to develop their region, refusing to revamp their seaports, refusing to dredge their River Niger and other inland Rivers to the sea, and threatening to shut down or downgrade their International Airport at Enugu.

“Whether it is lawful for the defendants to acquire a Radio Licence and set up a Radio Station for the Fulani herdsmen and pay them or offer to pay them the sum of N100 billion without doing the same thing for members of the claimant who are also Nigerian citizens, and if the answer is in the negative or affirmative, whether the Defendants’ acts in acquiring the said Radio Station for the Fulani Herdsmen and paying them or offering to pay them the sum of N100 billion without according the same favour or privilege to members of the Claimant being equal citizens of the same country constitute a violation of Section 42(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and therefore, unlawful.  

“Whether the Defendants by registering Nigeria as a member of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) in 1986 and licensing an Islamic Sharia Bank in Nigeria under the 1999 Constitution contrary to Section 10 of the Constitution of Nigeria have violated the Constitution and turned Nigeria into an Islamic country; and if the answer is in the affirmative, whether the members of the Claimant have the right to dissociate themselves from the Defendants and refuse to be called the citizens of an Islamic country in the exercise of their right to freedom of worship, freedom of association and self-determination as a people.”

IPOB : Details of Nnamdi Kanu meeting with UN emerge

The IPOB leader had led a delegation to a series of meetings with various UN agencies and officials at Geneva where he presented Biafra’s plight on Tuesday.

Emma Powerful, the IPOB’s Media and Publicity Secretary, in a statement on Thursday, said Kanu’s emergence from the meeting was met with chants of the eulogy by a congregation of Biafrans.

Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, on Thursday, disclosed that issues concerning the Biafran people were before the various arms and agencies of the United Nations, adding that Biafra’s case would no longer be swept under the carpet.

Powerful disclosed that Kanu demanded urgent action against the numerous rights abuses inflicted daily upon Biafra agitators by the government of the day and the need to support the undeniable right of Biafrans to self-determination as enshrined in law, statute and various UN conventions.

The statement added, “Every issue concerning our people is now before the various arms and agencies of the United Nations. Our case will no longer be ignored.

“The case of RUGA settlement was also raised and the august body was left in doubt that Biafrans will never allow Fulani terror settlements in Biafraland.         

“Incessant killing of Biafrans in their own land by terrorist Fulani herdsmen, extortion and killing of Biafran motorcyclists and commercial drivers by the Nigerian army and police over refusal to give N50 bribery.”

It added that Kanu was accompanied by his deputy, Mazi Uche Mefor, Head of Directorate of State, Mazi Chika Edoziem and other top echelons of the struggle.

The Biafran leader raised the continued illegal detention of Omoleye Sowore, the relentless persecution of the members of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria led by Sheikh El-Zakzaky, among other issues.