Monday, January 27, 2020

BIAFRA : FG vows to arrest IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu

Image result for FG vows to arrest IPOB leader, Nnamdi KanuThe Federal Government has moved to ensure that Nnamdi Kanu is arrested and brought before the Nigerian court.

The Federal Government has vowed to ensure that the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, is arrested and made to face all charges against him.

Image result for FG vows to arrest IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu

The federal government has also urged the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja to throw out any request by the IPOB leader seeking a restoration of his bail.
Recall that Justice Binta Nyako, on March 28, 2019, revoked the bail she granted Kanu in April 2017, ordered his arrest, and directed that the trial would continue in his absence.

What this means is that Kanu can be arrested and brought before the court if apprehended within the country.
Nyako's decision was largely due to Kanu's absence during his trial.
The IPOB leader, standing trial for treasonable felony, had disappeared from the country after the Army allegedly invaded his father's house in September 2018.
In April 2019, Kanu's lawyer, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, had pleaded with the Court to restore Kanu's bail as as a condition for Kanu to return to Nigeria to face trial.
But according to documents obtained by Punch on Friday, January 24, 2020, the federal government has opposed the application filed by Kanu seeking the restoration of his bail.

The federal government's objection

Image result for FG vows to arrest IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu

The objection was filed by the prosecuting counsel, Magaji Labaran, on January 17, 2020.
The federal government, in its counter-affidavit, noted that Kanu, having allegedly jumped bail, was not entitled to be granted any indulgence by the court.
“That the defendant in this case is standing trial for treasonable felony and was granted bail by this honourable court," the federal government said in an affidavit.
“That the defendant has jumped bail. That three sureties that stood for him were asked to appear before the court and show cause after several adjournments at their instance.
Image result for FG vows to arrest IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu

"That the defendant, since he jumped bail, has deliberately refused to submit to the jurisdiction of this court.
“That the defendant cannot seek any indulgence from this honourable court.”
According to the federal government, the court could no longer take any step aimed at reversing the decision revoking the bail except by a higher court.
The trial has been adjourned until March 31, 2020.

BIAFRA : Islamic group sends message to Southwest governors

The Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) has called on Governors of Southwest States to allow the Operation Amotekun embrace all citizens living in the sub-region.
MURIC also advised that the new security organization should not lean towards any religion or target any ethnic group for victimization.
The call was made in a statement on Monday issued to DAILY POST by the Director of the human rights organization, Prof. Ishaq Akintola.
This was sequel to the resolution of the governors of the South West to give a legal backing to the Amotekun security outfit.
The statement added, “No homo sapien compos mentis living in Yorubaland will oppose the setting up of a security outfit to complement the existing security agencies on ground (the army, police, NNDC, DSS, etc).
“We all want lives and properties secured all over Nigeria. That is why people living on every street have security arrangements in place while some individuals also have both day and night guards in their private offices and homes.
“It is therefore mischievous to give the impression that Muslims are against the South West security initiative. No reasonable Nigerian today will frown at attempts to boost security in any part of the country. What we oppose is the religious and ethnic tinge which the handlers gave Amotekun.
“You cannot blame Muslims for crying out when you ask them to bring birth certificates from churches before joining Amotekun. Neither can you expect them to stand akimbo when you tell them to bring letters of recommendation from churches.
“Muslims in the Yoruba enclave are not opposing Amotekun per se. What they oppose is a situation where a ostensibly anti-Islam security outfit comes into operation in Yorubaland.
“Apart from the reference to birth certificates from churches and letters of reference from pastors, the choice of nomenclature is another controversial issue because it has a strong Christian identity.
“Why ‘Amotekun’ as a name for crying out loud? Research has revealed the biblical origin of this name and it makes Muslims suspicious. Why Amotekun of all brands?
“Jeremiah 5:6 says, ‘A leopard shall guard over their city’. Amotekun is mentioned in this verse with particular reference to guarding a city.
“Now, we have a sub-region where Muslims have been under persecution for ages coming up with a security outfit under the name of the same leopard mentioned in the bible as a guard over the city.
“This is not a coincidence. The handlers of Amotekun picked the name deliberately from the bible in order to score a spiritual point. It is very critical. It calls for serious concern. So why give a security unit a religious name?
“We advise the planners of the new security outfit to give it another name in the interest of peace and harmony in the sub-region. This is necessary if they want to carry all stakeholders along. Amotekun as a name is already controversial. We do not need a Christian security unit.
“Neither do we need a Muslim security outfit. The security agency in the South West must not only be neutral, it must also be seen to be neutral.
“We affirm that Muslims form the majority in the population of the South West. They are therefore critical stakeholders and the unity of the Yoruba cannot become fait accompli without involving the Muslims in the sub-region. Muslims must be carried along in any security network in the zone. We are interested in security.
“We are security conscious. We will therefore join a South West security initiative if it is not tainted with Christian landmarks. We will have confidence in a security outfit that involves Muslim leaders, not one that parades pastors, bishops and archbishops alone.
“It must also be noted that a security group that starts with subtle threats to our brethren in faith in another part of the country cannot be safe for Muslims in Yorubaland. There is no racism or tribalism in Islam (Qur’an 49:13). It is a global brotherhood. Yoruba Muslims love Yorubaland.
“They also love Nigeria. But they owe their Creator, Allah, an unflinching and undiluted love towards their brothers and sisters in Islam no matter their race, tribe or colour. From Allah we came and unto Allah we shall return.
“On that Day, nobody will be judged on the basis of his tribe but on the basis of his deeds on earth. Nonetheless, we believe in a united Nigeria and we will support a security unit that constitutes no threat to any tribe in the country, be it Igbo, Fulani, Ijaw, or Tiv.
“However, the latest assurance coming from certain quarters that birth certificates from churches and letters of reference from pastors was not part of the original pre-requisites is most welcome.
“MURIC will support any security arrangement anywhere in Nigeria so long as such arrangement is devoid of gymnastic religiousity and acrobatic ethnicity.
“In addition, the organisers of Amotekun must desist from attempts to intimidate perceived opponents of the scheme. Leaders of the group must caution their foot-soldiers against excesses.
“They must distance themselves from arm-twisting gimmicks like deliberately misinterpreting statements made by people who oppose the Amotekun idea.
“For instance, MURIC has very strong evidence that some elements in the Amotekun camp have issued death threats to its leader. That is unacceptable. It is an attempt to silence opposition.
“All opinions must be allowed in a democracy. That is freedom of speech. Those who attempt to muzzle opinions give the impression that they have hidden agenda. It presupposes that the Amotekun security project will be biased and unprofessional when it finally comes on board. We refuse to be intimidated. It changes nothing in our stand and style of advocacy.
“In a nutshell, as the organisers deliberate on the legal framework to back the complementary security project in the South West, we advise that such legal framework includes a clause that lays emphasis on religious neutrality, security for all citizens residing in Yorubaland regardless of their ethnic background and a new name which is acceptable to all faiths.”

Sunday, January 26, 2020

BIAFRA : The Angel of History and the Ghost of Biafra




Wednesday 15 January marked 50 years since the end of Nigeria’s bitter civil war. That was the day that Colonel Philip Effiong submitted the articles of surrender to Yakubu Gowon at Dodan Barracks, Lagos. Gowon famously declared that there were “no victors, no vanquished”. By a curious coincidence, January 15 was also the date when,

 in 1966, the first military putsch led by Major Chukwuma Nzeogwu triggered a chain reaction that culminated in the tragic civil war, 1967–1970. As a child I recall when the thick of night dozens of Igbo families turned up at my parents’ modest home in the parsonage in Murya, a mission settlement just outside Lafia, today the capital of Nasarawa State. One of the women had just put to bed. Daddy did all he could to protect them from a bloodbath that was to consume more than a hundred thousand defenseless people. I have never seen such fear in the eyes of grown men. After barely a week, my parents received death threats from the neigbouring villages for harbouring Igbo people. Daddy had to let them go. In the thick of midnight, the refugees tearfully disappeared into the bowels of the primeval savannah. Never to be seen or heard of again. Their memory still haunts me to this day

The debate on whether the January coup was an “Igbo coup” or a nationalist uprising need not preoccupy us. True, there were the likes of Major Adewale Ademoyega and one or two Northern subalterns, but the key conspirators were Igbo. Nzeogwu, Emmanuel Ifeajuna, Timothy Onwuatuegu, Chris Anuforo, Henry Chukwuka and Don Okafor were patriots with probably honest intentions. But their coup was one-sided in execution. Circulating pictures of the slain Ahmadu Bello with the boots of Nzeogwu on his chest was deeply offensive to Northern sensibilities. To add insult to injury, most of Ironsi’s ministers and advisers were Igbo. His infamous Decree No. 34 summarily creating a unitary state only served to confirm Northern fears that they were about to be swamped. It seems clear that destiny prepared Yakubu Gowon for the singular role of keeping our country together. The son of Anglican missionary parents born in Wusasa in 1934, he was an Angas by tribe but culturally Hausa. An outstanding student of Barewa College – Head Boy, football captain and star athlete — he had intended to pursue a career in engineering and teaching, but his British teachers saw in him the potential of a great military commander and convinced  him to tow that that path. He attended Sandhurst Royal Military Academy where he acquitted himself with distinction.

Gowon was engaged to an attractive young Igbo woman, but could not marry her because his colleagues warned him that it was impolitic in a time of belligerence marry from the “enemy”. Contrary to popular misrepresentations, Gowon never waged a genocidal war against Biafra. He saw it as a quarrel between brothers. This, unfortunately, could not be said of field commanders such as Murtala Mohammed and Benjamin Adekunle. Gowon and Awolowo have been blamed for the economic blockade that led to the loss of a million souls in Biafra. But we must weigh the counterfactual – in terms of how much more devastating the war would have been if it had lasted for many more years. History will absolve Yakubu Gowon. He is the Abraham Lincoln of modern Nigeria; a man of compassion, justice and restraint. He towers heads and shoulders above all our leaders, past and present. Biafra is dead, but its ghost continues to haunt our country like a phantom that refuses to go away. Ever since 1970, there has been an unwritten conspiracy that no Igbo man can be trusted to assume the high magistracy of our federal republic. It is an affront to the highly gifted Ndigbo, with their ingenuity, sagacity and can-do spirit. Part of the problem is that Ndigbo themselves have been their own worst enemies. Betrayal is common among them. The people of the Blessed Cyprian Iwene Tansi and the venerable Cardinal Francis Arinze have tragically been overtaken by a godless materialism that has eroded their spirituality and sense of values. Their presumptuous attitudes have alienated the Ijaw, Ikwerre and other South-South minorities who abhor the very mention of Biafra.  It is a collective tragedy. With the benefit of hindsight, Biafra was a tragic misadventure. Neither Gowon nor Ojukwu expected what they regarded as a mere skirmish to end up in a war that took the lives of millions. It is in the nature of human conflict that it is capable of assuming a dynamic of its own while moving into unforeseen and unexpected directions. Ojukwu’s personal ego, if truth be told, stood on the way of a genuine settlement. He was a pigheaded spoilt brat. Born with a silver spoon, his legend still endured in the Oxford of my days as one of the few undergraduates who drove around campus in a Rolls Royce. He saw Gowon as a peasant boy from the rustic backwaters of the North; under-estimating him to his own tragic discomfiture. A man with a lion heart, Gowon spoke softly but wielded a big stick. Ojukwu took his people on a tragic fiasco in the single-minded pursuit of personal power. With such great constitutional theorists as Kalu Ezera, Edwin Nwogugu and B. O. Nwabueze, why didn’t Biafra operate a viable constitution? Was Biafra just another African autocracy anchored on personal rule? Even granted that things were difficult in that complex and chaotic war environment, did he not owe his people a commitment to govern on the basis of law and constitutionalism instead of egocentric adventurism? And was it true that Nzeogwu was set up to be killed at the war front because he was seen as a personal threat to Ojukwu? Were Emmanuel Ifeajuna, Victor Banjo, Philip Alale and Sam Agbam executed because they differed with him on questions of political policy? Why did he abandon his people at their hour of defeat in such a cowardly manner? These questions are for historians, not for a humble Columnist. I am persuaded that the Good Lord did not make mistake in placing the Igbo people among us. There is no one to rival their commercial acumen. My own people always say that wherever you go and you don’t find Igbo people there, leave the place immediately! Truth is, Nigeria will never be Nigeria without Ndigbo. I can understand even if I do not approve of, Nnamdi Kanu and his IPOB movement. The English political philosopher John Locke taught that an oppressive government that operates on the basis of exclusionism and sinister agendas must be resisted and opposed. Matthew Hassan Kukah, Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Sokoto, is right when he says that our government has created the atmosphere that provides fertile ground for the murderous activities of Boko Haram.  Ndigbo continue to suffer disproportionately whenever Northerners resume the madness of their ritual bloodbaths. We can only bury the ghost of Biafra through repentance and reconciliation. We must repent for the crimes we have committed against Ndigbo and against God and Humanity. With the prospects of ISWAP invading our country, the Yoruba have come up with Amotekun as a vehicle of resistance. Do not be deceived: Ametukn will metamorphose into an army when push comes to shove. Both municipal and international law give people who face an existential threat the right to defend themselves. We who have been at the receiving end are not about to commit suicide. Only a re-engineered and restructured political order can save our country from mortal peril.

Read more: https://www.dailytrust.com.ng/the-angel-of-history-and-the-ghost-of-biafra.html

BIAFRA : IPOB condemns shutdown of Nnamdi Kanu’s Facebook page


Tony Okafor, Awka
The Indigenous People of Biafra has flayed  Facebook Nigeria for allegedly shutting down the  page of its leader, Nnamdi Kanu.
The group’s Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful, in a statement, said  the action was taken by Facebook Nigeria to diminish the growing popularity of Kanu in his cause.
 Powerful said the page had endeared Kanu to most people as it was used to expose the atrocities of government.
He said Biafra, during the Nigeria’s Civil War, suffered great denial of media space, and IPOB would not allow a repeat in the 21st century.
Powerful said, “We can confirm that Facebook Nigeria has shut down the page of our leader, Nnamdi Kanu.
“This is not unconnected with the fact that our leader’s page has become a rich resource for those determined to expose the evil regime in Nigeria and enthrone a better life for the masses.
“We mince no words when we say that Facebook Nigeria is more corrupt than the corrupt government they are seeking to protect.
“Biafra suffered immeasurably as a result of denial of media space in the late 60s, a situation we are not prepared to allow in this 21st century.”

Saturday, January 25, 2020

BIAFRA : Facebook ‘Clamps Down On Biafra’, Shuts Down Nnamdi Kanu’s Page

 Image result for NEWSFacebook ‘Clamps Down On Biafra’, Shuts Down Nnamdi Kanu’s Page

Social Media Network, Facebook, has shut down the page of Nnamdi Kanu, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) in what appears to be a clampdown on Biafra agitation championed by the IPOB leader.
Naija News reports that Kanu’s group, the IPOB made this claim in a statement issued on Thursday, January 23 by its Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful.
In the statement, the IPOB alleged that the action was taken by Facebook Nigeria who, it said viewed the page as a platform to exposing the ills in government.
The IPOB warned that Biafra had suffered greatly as a result of the denial of media space in the late 60s, saying it could not afford to allow same to continue in the 21st century.
According to IPOB: “We can confirm that Facebook Nigeria has shut down the page of our leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
“This is not unconnected with the fact that our leader’s page has become a rich resource for those determined to expose the evil regime in Nigeria and enthrone a better life for the masses.
We mince no words when we say that Facebook Nigeria is more corrupt that the corrupt government they are seeking to protect.
“Biafra suffered immeasurably as a result of denial of media space in the late 60s a situation we are not prepared to allow in this 21st century,” the statement added.
Meanwhile, Naija News reports that the development is coming 24-hours after Kanu released fresh proof that President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria is dead and had since been replaced by an impostor whose name is Jubril Al-Sudani from Sudan.
In December 2019, Kanu accused Facebook staff in Nigeria of colluding with President Buhari’s government to remove his followers and reduce reactions to his posts on the popular social media platform.
Kanu had said that said it was so bad that the social media giant was also diverting some of his followers to fake accounts opened under his name, just to sabotage his effort to attain freedom for Biafra.
The IPOB leader had bemoaned that despite reporting the fake accounts severally to the Nigerian office of Facebook, the fake accounts had been allowed to flourish and garner more followers who mistook them for his own.
“I wish to apologise to my followers on Facebook for the Nigerian government sponsored attack on my page with the help of corrupt Facebook local staff based in Lagos.
“Facebook Nigeria in collusion with the Nigerian government is removing my followers and reducing the reactions to my post in an effort to demoralise our activist base and give the misleading impression that not many people are interested in exposing the ills of the totalitarian Fulani APC regime and Biafra restoration,” Kanu had said in December.

BIAFRA : Examining Britain’s part in the Biafran war

Malnourished children affected by the Biafran conflict

Robert Bennett says no account of the war should ignore its origins in a mainly Igbo military coup in 1966. Alan Healey thinks too many people still look at Britain’s colonial past as a golden age. Judith Nicoll recalls her father, who was shot down and killed while flying food and medicines into Biafra

Frederick Forsyth (Buried for 50 years: Britain’s shameful role in Biafra, Journal, 21 January) arrived in Biafra shortly after I was evacuated in June 1967 at the start of the war, just 15 miles north of Nsukka, where I was working as a university lecturer.
No account of the Biafran war should ignore its origins in a mainly Igbo military coup in January 1966, a coup in which three Nigerian political leaders were assassinated (none of them Igbo). Among them was a man who, by popular accounts, was a modest and good politician: the prime minister, Tafawa Balewa.
The military justified their actions with widespread corruption in government. The eventual consequences were the attempted secession of Biafra from Nigeria and the dreadful war of attrition, with the British duplicity that Forsyth describes. And the children, are they not the first casualty of war? One very great sadness for me is that a dear colleague, a truly gentle man, was shot by the Biafran military because of his advocacy for the independent Nigeria (only gained from Britain in 1960). He believed in his non-Igbo language area of Biafra.Robert BennettLeicester
 Frederick Forsyth paints a depressing picture of Britain’s role in Biafra, but his picture is rather too narrow. At the beginning of his piece he says that most of the time he is proud of his country, while mentioning a small number of other incidents that bring shame upon Britain. In fact, our whole colonial history, along with that of several other European countries, is a source of shame. While we can point to considerable incidental benefits from our colonial past – Indian railways are often cited – those benefits were almost always for our own benefit and none excused the gross exploitation of peoples and raw materials that made us rich. Too many people still look at our past as a golden age. It wasn’t.
Alan Healey
Baschurch, Shropshire
 My father, an ex-RAF bomber pilot, flew for Joint Church Aid, carrying food and medicines into Biafra. He flew night flights from São Tomé to avoid the Nigerian MiG fighters and was shot down and killed by a German mercenary in September 1969 while trying to land at Uli airport. I understand several other people died with him. He is buried by the side of Uli airport. Frederick Forsyth had met my father and kindly wrote a long letter to my mother offering his sympathy for her loss. I believe he was the only British pilot out there.
Judith Nicoll
East Lydford, Somerset
 Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
 Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
 Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition

As 2020 begins…

… we’re asking readers, like you, to make a new year contribution in support of the Guardian’s open, independent journalism. This has been a turbulent decade across the world – protest, populism, mass migration and the escalating climate crisis. The Guardian has been in every corner of the globe, reporting with tenacity, rigour and authority on the most critical events of our lifetimes. At a time when factual information is both scarcer and more essential than ever, we believe that each of us deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.
More people than ever before are reading and supporting our journalism, in more than 180 countries around the world. And this is only possible because we made a different choice: to keep our reporting open for all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay.
We have upheld our editorial independence in the face of the disintegration of traditional media – with social platforms giving rise to misinformation, the seemingly unstoppable rise of big tech and independent voices being squashed by commercial ownership. The Guardian’s independence means we can set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Our journalism is free from commercial and political bias – never influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This makes us different. It means we can challenge the powerful without fear and give a voice to those less heard.
None of this would have been attainable without our readers’ generosity – your financial support has meant we can keep investigating, disentangling and interrogating. It has protected our independence, which has never been so critical. We are so grateful.
As we enter a new decade, we need your support so we can keep delivering quality journalism that’s open and independent. And that is here for the long term. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable.

Ojukwu’s excuse, absolute nonsense –Gowon

Biafra: Ojukwu’s excuse, absolute nonsense –Gowon

Nigeria’s wartime Head of State, Gen. Yakubu Gowon has given further insights into happenings that led to the Biafra war, which ended 50 years ago. According to excerpts from an exclusive interview with the former military leader and published as part of Mike Awoyinfa’s Press Clips column in this edition of Saturday Sun, Gowon said Ikemba Odumegwu Ojukwu’s excuse for avoiding initial peace meetings before the war eventually broke out was absolute nonsense.
His words, “For absenting himself from the meetings, Ojukwu tried to use insecurity as excuse.  But to me, that was absolute nonsense.  Even in Accra, in Aburi, there could be the question of insecurity there.  Anything could have happened.  If we wanted, could we have not have arranged for some deranged persons in Ghana to deal with that particular problem?  That was really the question that he tried to raise.  That it is insecurity.  We promised him security.  That all of us were there and none of us would have had any desire to hurt or harm him, or to hurt the Ibos.  Because if you do anything, you are hurting the Ibos.  And if you do that, then they would have had all the rights to say that if you have done this to our leader, we are not accepting anyone else, unless you produce him.  At least, we are honest and honorable enough to ensure the security of everyone there, for the sake of the country.”
While dismissing insinuations of existing rivalry between him and Ojukwu, he said “I don’t know why people keep referring to the so-called rivalry between me and Ojukwu.  There was no question of rivalry between us at all.  As young officers in the army, our relationship was exceptionally good.  We were very friendly.  The only time that anything happened was in 1964 after the election, when Zik sacked Balewa and Balewa sacked Zik.  That was the time that probably you can say certain developments led me to give a warning, because there was this question of some of the senior military officers between Banjo and Ojukwu, urging the military to intervene on behalf of Zik.
“Of course, I listened to their presentations and what I thought they meant was that there should be military intervention led by us the senior officers at the time: With David Ejoor as the GSO 1, as the Senior Staff Officer, and then myself as Adjutant General of the Nigerian Army and then Ojukwu as the Quartermaster General and then Banjo as the head of the electrical and mechanical engineers.  Now, four of us: Ejoor from the Midwest, myself from the North, Ojukwu from the East and Banjo from the West.  So if you have four of us from the four regions of the country at the time saying that we are heading a change on behalf of Zik, and not the government, what does that mean?  So, I warned, asking: “Is that what you meant?  Count me out!  God help anybody who starts any such nonsense.”
“Afterwards, I went to see our commanding officer, a British officer and told him he should get all of us senior officers and brief us on whom our loyalty belonged.  Yes, our loyalty belongs to the government.  Zik is part of government and Balewa is also part of government.  So when you start talking of starting something like that in favour of one particular person and not the whole government, there would be problems.  So I asked the GOC to call of us and discuss.  And I can assure you that I did not mention any name.  No name was mentioned but he called all the senior officers to be briefed on the correct thing to do, which he did and made contact with the Inspector General of Police Mr. R. Bovell and the Attorney General and all the legal people to be able to define what our loyalty should be.  And of course, we were briefed on what our loyalty was.  And so, probably that stopped the possible first coup in Nigeria.  The next time it happened, it was not by the senior officers but by the majors and captains at the time.”

BIAFRA NEWS

Biafra news : Free Nnamdi Kanu, even if it doesn’t make legal sense – Actor Bishop Umoh tells Tinubu govt

  Popular Nollywood actor, Ime Bishop Umoh, a.k.a. Okon Lagos,  has called on the Federal Government to release the detained leader of the I...

BIAFRA NEWS