When Biafra Ceased to Exist: Archived Video Shows Major-General Philip Effiong Concedes the War

“That we accept the existing administrative and political structure of the Federation of Nigeria, that any future constitutional arrangement will be worked out by representatives of the people of Nigeria. That the Republic of Biafra hereby ceases to exist.”

By Anthony Obi Ogbo (Texas International Guardian)

The basic philosophy of progress hinges on reconciliation of the past with the present to forge a prolific future. While the issue about Nigeria’s restructuring or regional partition rages, it might be appropriate to update the current population about documented facts about the previous civil war in connection with the struggle of the Igbo’s for self-resurgence; and how it sadly ended.

It was on January 15 few days after the surrender at Dondan Barracks in Lagos, in the presence of General Gowon, below is Biafra’s second-in-command, Major-General Philip Effiong conceding the war, and announcing the end of the Biafra.

Biafra’s Concession Speech  – from Effiong to Gowon

“I, Major-General Philip Effiong, Officer Administrating the Government of the Republic of Biafra, now wish to make the following declaration: that we affirm that we are loyal Nigerian citizens and accept the authority of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria. That we accept the existing administrative and political structure of the Federation of Nigeria, that any future constitutional arrangement will be worked out by representatives of the people of Nigeria. That the Republic of Biafra hereby ceases to exist.

The situation seem hopeless and prolonging the conflict would have only led to further destruction and starvation of the people of Biafra so Effiong believed. “I am convinced now that a stop must be put to the bloodshed which is going on as a result of war. I am also convinced that the suffering of our people must be brought to an immediate end”

The term “Biafra” is psychologically relevant to every person who hails from a region once declared as Biafra. Yet it must be noted that political and historical relevance of this this struggle has never been disputed, and in fact remains indelible in the global history of human struggle for existence.  

This may be hard to swallow, but must be noted that the current contention about Biafra has nothing whatsoever to do with a collective struggle of the Igbos.  Pro-Biafara groups do not represent the Igbos but individually represents specific missions which most of them have totally failed to properly convey.

Noted one Dr. Ugoji Egbujo in an article published in the Nigerian Vanguard, “Biafra was justice and freedom. But Biafra has become a tool for charlatans, a toy for dissipation of youthful exuberance. Biafra once evoked Igbo unity and enterprise. But Biafra has now been appropriated by jobless opportunists who exploit the frustrations of their poor brothers. Biafra was Igbo fellowship. But this their new Biafra thrives on cannibalizing fellow Igbos. Biafra was consultation, consensus. This Biafra is now extremism, hallucination, egocentrism.”

It is evident that the current controversy about Biafra – to be or not to be – has nothing to do with identity of the Igbos as Biafrans. Being a Biafran is not a choice; for every person who hails from a region once declared as Biafra is a Biafran. However, we must note that the only major contention is a total resistance to charlatans and ill-informed extremists using Biafra and the most respected Igbo values to aimlessly and unintelligibly pursue selfish interests. 

♦ Publisher, Anthony Obi Ogbo, PhD is the founder of the American Journal of Transformational Leadership

Nigeria might be spiritually haunted by the blood of Biafra’s genocide victims

By Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo
By Dr. Anthony Obi Ogbo

The entire regions in Nigeria have been miserable recently. Since this year, this country has witnessed the ruggedness of fiscal austerity, borne out of inability of the ruling class to strategize on a constructive economic policy.  

In the last few days however, the sociopolitical trauma and misery that plagued Nigeria have basically nothing to do with an excruciating economic hardship. The country is fundamentally going through what may be considered the “May Day” effect. This circle comes every May 30 – the anniversary of the declaration of the Republic of Biafra. Each May 30 period, Nigeria shivers of guilt and frustrated conscience; tormented by their total lack of remorse and scorn of a crime against the Igbos.       

Biafra was proclaimed on May 30, 1967. Monday, the anniversary of the declaration of an independent Republic of Biafra, Nigeria, again trembled in confusion – especially when the President, Muhammadu Buhari took part in this genocide that terminated millions, including defenseless children who were starved to death in a failed bid to terminate the Igbo race from the face of the earth.

Even with a “No Victor-No Vanquish” declaration after the war in 1970 by the head of state, General Gowon (retired), the Igbos have been systematically denied their rights of true Nigerian citizenship; they have been socially and economically castigated by various regimes threatened by their ingenuity; they have in fact, been prohibited from discussing this war as well as reflecting on their terrifying plights.

Children victims of starvation. Most of them later died of starvation. Yet officers who took part in this genocide would write books where they bragged about their various commands, whereas families of victims would be prosecuted for simply expressing their tribulations.
Children victims of starvation. Most of them later died. Yet officers who took part in this genocide would write books where they bragged about their various commands, whereas families of victims would be prosecuted for simply expressing their tribulations.

Various regimes have been consistent with either destroying or suppressing  war documents and narratives to cover-up proofs of mass slaughter and shield their individual roles. Even as history of wars of other countries are integrated in the Nigeria’s learning system, the government would always proscribed scholarly dissertations of her own civil war, as ‘hate message’.

For instance, officers who took part in this genocide would write books where they bragged about their various commands, whereas families of victims would be prosecuted for simply expressing their tribulations. Monday in Ebonyi State, the police arrested some priests who were conducting an inter-denominational service for members of the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB). More than 200 armed officers had stormed the church, midway into the service and arrested the priests and other members. At Nkpor-Agu in Anambra State, the Nigerian Military attacked members of the Movement for Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) and the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), who were celebrating this anniversary.

In his own explanation in the past, President Buhari had actually said that Biafra was a hate word, and that mere mention of the name “Biafra” threatens peace and stability in the populace.  

To pacify his prejudice of the Biafra’s issue, he had singlehandedly influenced the legal process in arrest and prosecution of Nnamdi  Kanu, a United Kingdom-based  political activist the leader of  the Indigenous People of Biafra.  Kanu, it may be recalled was once granted bail by an Abuja Federal High Court, but was re-arrested with a fresh charge of treasonable felony. According to President Buhari, Kanu had smuggled equipment into the country just to preach hate messages.

It also might be interesting to know that in the Eastern Nigeria, still chastised by the system for being “Biafrans”, individuals are categorized as insurgents and jailed for as much as seven years for possession of handguns, whereas cattle herdsmen from the North walk around with assault rifles terrorizing villages.  Also, organizations from the East –side, peacefully demonstrating for their social needs and interests are manhandled by ruthless security forces, whereas  Buhari’s regime categorizes the Boko Haram terrorists as “misguided” brethren, releasing suspects from various jail houses and granting them amnesties.  The regime has since procured comfortable camps to rehabilitate these members of one of world’s deadliest terrorist organization.

Leader of Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu attends a trial on February 9, 2016. He was denied bail. Kanu, it may be recalled was once granted bail by an Abuja Federal High Court, but was re-arrested with a fresh charge of treasonable felony. According to President Buhari, Kanu had smuggled equipment into the country just to preach hate messages.
Leader of Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu attends a trial on February 9, 2016. He was denied bail. Kanu, it may be recalled was once granted bail by an Abuja Federal High Court, but was re-arrested with a fresh charge of treasonable felony. According to President Buhari, Kanu had smuggled equipment into the country just to preach hate messages.

With this ruthlessly narrow-minded approach to handling issues related to Biafra, Nigeria’s pursuit for true unity has always, miserably remained in obscurity. President Buhari has arrogantly shown a disregard for democratic rights of thought, opinion, and expression of the Igbos; he has outlawed their rights of assembly, and demonstration; and to make it worse, he has clogged their access to justice – leaving them totally detached from the anchor of national unity.

Beyond a ruthless disregard by this regime, the circumstances surrounding Biafra’s struggle are facing other major challenges. For instance, most Nigerians believe that the term ‘Biafra’ stands for secession or revolt, and therefore, sees any person that raises the Biafran flag, or wears a Biafran tee-shirt as a secessionist.  Yet, most Nigerians who witnessed this civil war from places other than Biafra saw with their naked eyes, the evils that were committed on this population. These Nigerians are a living testimony that the easterners who struggled for the Biafran state in the 60s wanted nothing other than their rights of self-existence and protection from a region where they were used, abused, hated, and frequently killed.  

Today, the political landscape has totally changed, and Nigerians, and indeed the ruling class must understand that celebrating or advocating Biafra should not be ignorantly misread as a call to breakup Nigeria, but must be embraced as a mission for a needed dialogue on how Nigeria could be structured for better governance. Let it be known then that resourcefulness of the Biafran fraternity lies in her strength to stand their grounds; their ingenuity to weather a hostile political terrain; and their capacity to defend what they believe in. Thus, until Nigeria as a country respects citizens’ cause and advocacy for their interests, a peaceful and united region would be completely unattainable.

Until the leaders of this country righty create the necessary dialogue to address “Biafra” and reconcile the wishes of survivors of this genocide, the blood and spirit of millions of victims of this war would always torment the ruling system with policy disaster, service ambiguity and sociopolitical misery.    

Nigeria ought to be worried that since the end of the war in 1970, this country is still struggling with leadership; dwindling from military coup to military coup – civilian regime to civilian regime;  and unable to provide the very basic amenities to the citizens.  Until the leaders of this country righty create the necessary dialogue to address “Biafra” and reconcile the wishes of survivors of this genocide, the blood and spirit of millions of victims of this war would always torment the ruling system with policy disaster, service ambiguity and sociopolitical misery.   

Dr. Ogbo  is the publisher of Houston-based International Guardian.

Biafra: Enough Already

By Dr. Emeaba Emeaba
By Dr. Emeaba Emeaba

Biafra—a failed attempt by the people of Eastern Nigeria to secede from a Nigeria that had mortally wronged them—was a very ill-wind that blew everyone badly, and has been an indictment to the Nigerian nationhood ever since.

Careless, easy-going and tolerant, in almost every way—politically, culturally, socially—Nigeria, a naturally big and mean West African chaos of a country with as many languages as there are tribes,  had it all and was prepared for everything but Biafra. Biafra came without as much as a dollop of mercy.

In a little less than three years, it stripped Nigeria of its jaunty fillip, rendering her south eastern reaches an earthly verisimilitude of hell. That scourge came impudently spewing death and destruction and left a harrowing swath of bestial mayhem, woe and misery. We are yet to recover.

In truth, you must be sixty and above to have an inkling of what Biafra—the cause of such widespread weeping and lamentation—was all about. Let me refresh your memory if you are younger than sixty. It began January 15, 1966, barely six years after Nigeria’s heady independence from Britain’s colonial administration. At this time, regional political actors played to the sentiments and suspicions of their constituencies by using the fear of domination of one region by another as a boogeyman to garner votes. A group of army majors, in a protest of the unpopularity of the government, came claiming the politicians were not doing it right; and touted their dream of turning the woe-begotten Nigerian nation into a prosperous, peaceful democracy.

In truth, you must be sixty and above to have an inkling of what Biafra—the cause of such widespread weeping and lamentation—was all about.

They decided to kill all the politicians as an answer to their purported belief that Nigeria was adrift and tottering at the brink of perdition. Uncannily, the coup makers, who had an Igbo speaker as their de-facto leader, killed all the name-brand Hausa-Fulani politicians. Somehow, they conveniently did not kill any Igbo politician of note, unwittingly giving their move a biased ethnic tinge. This faux-pas understandably angered the rest of the country enough to generate an Igbo-phobia and hate of murderous proportion. That was when the Igbo retaliatory massacres began. Within days, it had metamorphosed into a nightmare without end as thousands of people of Igbo extraction, and other kindredly-vulnerable people of eastern Nigeria were variously maimed, decapitated, or slaughtered.

All over Nigeria, no Igbo person was safe outside the eastern region.

And so, following the pogroms, secession from Nigeria, and the war that followed became inevitable. The Governor of Eastern region—Lt. Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu—declared the region an independent republic country of Biafra, since the Igbo, scattered all over Nigeria in their characteristic jealousy-inducing, aggressive individualism and daring spirit, could no longer live safely in other parts of Nigeria. At the urging of the British, who never did trust the Igbo for spearheading the clamor for Nigeria’s independence, the Nigerian Army invaded the Igbo Biafra country. Led by Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon – the army chief of staff who promoted himself General after the coup and became commander-in-chief – the Nigerian army attacked. The war—the darkest chapter in Nigeria’s checkered history—was on.

As a P.S., the Biafra war which resulted in the decimation of the Igbo tribe evolved into a triangular big-power contest between Britain, France, and the Soviet Union according to newly released British secret papers.

The Igbo people had scared the crap out of watchers as they made moves that proved they could pull off the secession. Ojukwu who had thought Biafra could survive with the revenues accruing from the oilfields in their territory did not reckon with those who had stakes in the area. There was Britain, the former colonial power scared they could lose their oil holdings. Then, there was the late-comer Soviet Union which saw a chance to get a footing in the African exploitation exercise. And, of course, there was France looking to increase her influence in an area in which their colonial expedition only netted small fry countries with nothing to exploit.

According to newly-released intelligence reports, the world looked elsewhere as Britain and the Soviet Union unashamedly sent arms to boost the Federal military government, under General Yakubu Gowon. France, on the other hand, was a little subtle in her dealings, publicly denying its involvement in arming the Biafrans, but sneakily making very large weapons shipments through the neighboring Ivory Coast and Gabon with the sole objective being “the break-up of Nigeria which threatens, by its size and potential, to overshadow France’s client Francophone states in West Africa.”

Between the three countries, and outnumbered, ill-armed, and starving by the numbers, Biafra became a pun.

Biafra, like all wars, brought out the beast in Nigerians and Biafrans alike. For example soon after the Abagana mayhem, where a single well-placed Biafran bullet hit a petrol tanker in a convoy of Federal Nigerian troops causing an explosion that killed so many, the Federal Nigerian high command’s reaction was decisively swift and brutal. The order was simple and terse, and echoed by Brigadier General Benjamin Adekunle who led the advancing Nigeria Army’s Third Marine Commando division: “Crush this rebellion once and for all. Do not take prisoners. Shoot anything that moves, including those not moving.”

A column of Biafran civilians, in a bumper-to-bumper formation—women, children, and old men—was clogging the few highways leading out of Abagana. Nigeria Air force’s Russian-supplied Ilyushin 28s and British-supplied MiGs-17s fighters hovered overhead. Manned by British mercenary pilots who had acquired the odious reputation for not fighting fair by conveniently avoiding military targets to strafe hospitals and sick bays, and bomb refugee camps, and drop napalm bombs on fleeing civilians and on open air church services, the fighters came in low, flying at tree top levels firing their machine guns indiscriminately into the columns of civilians. Wrecked Biafran civilian vehicles blocked the roads creating choke point traffic jams that slowed the movement of the civilians. The Nigeria Air force bombers circling above dive-bombed the massive traffic jams, toggling their heavy bomb loads into the trapped masses of helpless Biafran civilians. The napalm bombs had the nasty habit of throwing slow-burning, jellied petrol over victims that could not be extinguished until the blackened victim burnt to death on fire soaked earth. The refugees died horribly.

On the ground level, elements of the Nigeria Army armored division rolled close to the scene of the bombing, leveled their gun turrets at the wounded, dying, and dead civilians and hosed them down with 50 caliber bullets that can dissolve a man’s head at a thousand yards. It was a wholesale massacre that turned women, children, old men, goats, pigs, chickens, dogs, and cats into corned beef. The civilians were dying in the thousands turning the Abagana exit road into a highway of death. As victims of the onslaught lay screaming with their hideously mutilated limbs and heart-breaking injuries that could horrify surgeons, petrified old men, panic-stricken women and distressed children milled around in a dazed confusion. They suffered terribly and died horribly.

File: Compelling images of starving Biafran children were pervasive in 1967-70, pushing Americans to donate food and money. In 1968, the Red Cross was spending $1.5 million per month on humanitarian aid in Biafra.
File: Compelling images of starving Biafran children were pervasive in 1967-70, pushing Americans to donate food and money. In 1968, the Red Cross was spending $1.5 million per month on humanitarian aid in Biafra.

Down the road from the scene of wanton civilian slaughter, a sapper corporal of the Biafran Organization of Freedom Fighters (BOFF) had wired a small bridge, with a Biafran-made explosive device known as the Ojukwu bucket, so as to blow it when the Nigerian armored column rolled by. This was with a view to delaying the Federal Nigeria armored division advance and giving the next town the opportunity of escaping the wanton slaughter that was sure to come. He stood horrified as an endless flow of Biafran refugees: a press of old men, and elderly women, mothers with small babies, families fleeing together—they came in their thousands streaming over the bridge and could not be made to stop. Then the Nigeria Air Force fighters came in low, their wing guns blazing as they strafed the fleeing column. Soon after, the Nigerian army armored division advanced on the bridge, and not wanting to be delayed, started firing their cupola-mounted coaxial machine guns into the packed crowd, mowing people down by the numbers, spewing severed limbs, exploded heads, and trailing human entrails all over the bridge.

The BOFF corporal had but a second to make up his mind. Wait for the civilians to clear the bridge, the Nigerian armored column will cross the bridge to continue the slaughter in the next town. Kill a few to save many, was what he could come up with. He touched his face, his two shoulders, and his chest in a silent prayer, and twisted the charging handle immediately. The explosive charges popped in rapid succession dropping the bridge structure, still jam-packed with screaming people, into the murky river below with an impressive splash that was at once spectacular and horrific.

With that much carnage, and following the blockade imposed on Biafra by the Nigerian Federal Military government, Biafra’s secession attempt collapsed in January1970. Finally, after an estimated one to three million—mostly Igbo people—had been shot or starved to death, Ojukwu went into exile “in search of peace” as Biafra surrendered. The Igbo went back into the Nigerian fold crossly silent.

For those clamoring for Biafra, I have something painful to tell you. If by some remote possibility you are handed Biafra, the very same Igbo leaders who are raping the core Igbo states from behind without letup are going to be the Biafran leaders.

It is therefore hard to reconcile those images of famished, malnourished children, bloating and sometimes decapitated corpses lying around, and the utter despondence of what was Biafra with the ill-advised clamor of the clueless group purporting to invoke the ghost of Biafra because people of Igbo extraction were being marginalized.

Someone did not know much about Biafra.

You see, what the Give-us-Biafra group has most tellingly deceived itself into believing is that if the small Igbo-speaking area of Nigeria is carved out as an independent country thereby bringing the government closer to them, things will change for the Igbo man. Not so, bro. If, in the unlikely event that happens, it will simply metamorphose into a nightmare without end, for the Biafrans will need a passport to go to Abuja, Lagos, or even Ikot Ekpene next door. The Igbo, sojourning dare-devils as it were, could not be confined in a space that little. Those traders in far flung areas of Nigeria will feel the full jolt of the hair-raising fallout of such a gaffe.

For those clamoring for Biafra, I have something painful to tell you. If by some remote possibility you are handed Biafra, the very same Igbo leaders who are raping the core Igbo states from behind without letup are going to be the Biafran leaders. The Igbo leaders are the problem—the same representatives in government who should speak for the Igbo. They have Igbo governors who have collected state allocations and pocketed them. The Igbo people know those Igbo ministers, governors, local government chairmen, senators, legislators; they know their country mansions, the new hotels they have built with money belonging to all of us. Those are the people that ought to be confronted. Every month, we read in the papers how much money the state collected from the federal purse. We wait for things to begin to happen; they don’t. We are angry. We want Biafra. We want an Igbo President. We want our villages to become states. We forget that even an Igbo president is not responsible for fixing the road in our villages, or providing us with drinking water. This is the job of your Igbo governors—the prime culprits responsible for your angst—who has been pocketing your collective money.

If the Igbo man is suffering in a Nigeria that has ‘marginalized’ him, what are the Igbo representatives in government doing about it? The ‘little’ money coming in from the Federal government is being diverted with impunity by the same leaders. I would rather the Biafra agitators agitate for those leaders to produce the money for the advancement of the Igbo man. If you cannot make your Igbo leaders accountable; even if you are handed Biafra, the same leaders will show up to take that money, too.

Dr. Dr Emeaba Emeaba is the publisher of Houston-based Drum Magazine.

Biafra: Abuja Appeal Court Denies Nnamdi Kanu Bail

Leader of Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu attends a trial on February 9, 2016. He is accused by the state of "propagating a secessionist agenda" with the intention to "levy war against Nigeria" and has been denied bail.
Leader of Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu attends a trial on February 9, 2016. He is accused by the state of “propagating a secessionist agenda” with the intention to “levy war against Nigeria” and has been denied bail.

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has upheld the decision of the Federal High Court to deny a bail application by the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, The Premium Times reports.

Kanu is facing treason charges, alongside two others, Benjamin Madubgwu and James Nwawuisi, at the Federal High Court in Abuja. On May 5, Kanu approached the appeal court through his counsel representative, Chucks Muoma, challenging the court’s decision to deny him bail. Muoma asked the court to determine whether the ruling, by Justice John Tsoho, was an “aberration” of Kanu’s fundamental rights.

 But in its ruling, a three member-panel, led by Justice Abdul Aboki, upheld the decision on account of his dual citizenship. The court said the chances of Kanu returning to his other country was high, and that the laws of his other country may prevent the trial from reaching its logical end.

Nigeria’s growing Fulani conflict stokes Biafran cause

721b8b9e6bdfb0adf5bd15326e34435327bfe772

Nsukka (Nigeria) (AFP) – The Fulani herdsmen attacked at 6:00 am, just after morning prayers in Nimbo, an idyllic village in southeast Nigeria where farmers grow yams and pawpaws.

At first the villagers thought it was a joke. The nomadic cattle rearers, who have clashed with farmers over grazing rights in central Nigeria for decades, had never come this far south.

But then they saw 20 young men descend from the hills and emerge from the palm tree forest, shooting AK-47 assault rifles in the air and waving machetes.

“We started hearing the sound of gunshots everywhere. They shot so many people,” Kingsley Oneyebuchie, a 31-year-old civil servant, told AFP.

“They shot one of my brothers, they used a knife on my dad, they killed so many,” he said from his hospital bed in the nearby town of Nsukka, bare-chested and wearing only red athletic shorts.

Oneyebuchie ran his fingers tentatively over a 20-centimetre (eight-inch) track of blue surgical stitches at the base of his scalp.

“They used machete on me. After using machete on me, they thought that I died,” he said.

Oneyebuchie was lucky to survive the attack on April 25. At least 10 people are thought to have been killed and scores of others injured.

– Ethnic lines –

In the past year, raids by Fulani herdsmen have increased in the southeast.

The worst happened some 200 kilometres (125 miles) away in Agatu, Benue state, in late February, where hundreds of people — most of them Christian farmers — were reportedly killed.

The bloodshed mirrors that after Nigeria gained independence in 1960, when Igbos dominant in the mainly Christian southeast, were pitted against Hausa and Fulani in the largely Muslim north.

The ethnic violence led to two military coups, hundreds of deaths — and ultimately a civil war, when the southeast broke away and declared an independent Republic of Biafra in 1967.

Some one million Igbos died either fighting for the fledgling nation or from starvation and disease in a brutal conflict that by its end in 1970 left the southeast broken.

Now, stricken villagers maintain the only solution to the Fulani attacks — and perceived northern domination of political posts from the president downwards — is an independent state.

“We need to know that this is Igbo and this is Fulani,” said Oneyebuchie. “We want them to leave our place so that we will be free.”

– Growing conflict –

According to the Global Terrorism Index 2015 report, “Fulani militants” killed 1,229 people in 2014 — up from 63 in 2013 — making them the “fourth most deadly terrorist group” in the world.

Most deaths happened in Nigeria’s religiously mixed so-called Middle Belt states.

But the apparent migration south into Igbo territory is being used by an increasingly hardline pro-Biafra movement as an indication the Nigerian government doesn’t serve or protect the region and is stoking discontent in the southeast.

Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari, a northern Hausa-Fulani who opposes the pro-Biafran movement, took until late April to speak out about the herdsmen, saying he had ordered military and police to “take all necessary action to stop the carnage”.

He has proposed setting up a grazing plan that includes the establishment of cattle ranches and importing grass feed from Brazil.

Critics argue his response is too little, too late and overly ambitious.

“I have yet to hear this government articulate a firm policy of non-tolerance for the serial massacres,” Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka said recently, describing the ranch plan as “optimistic”.

– ‘A second genocide’ –

The arrest and detention of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu last year catapulted him and his more hardline pressure group into the mainstream.

“Buhari has authorised a second genocide on Biafra,” IPOB, which has been campaigning for Kanu’s release through public protests, said about the herdsmen.

“Biafrans are on the verge of being exterminated,” it added.

In Nimbo, the farmers use less emotive language but their underlying message is the same.

Today the village is deserted, with shiny new padlocks fastened on the wood doors of mud-brick houses and hectares of cassava and melon crops abandoned until safer times.

“We have been complaining to government, complaining to everyone, no help,” said Thaddeus Okenwa, a 65-year-old cassava farmer with a raspy voice and muscular hands.

“We are now just managing because nothing goes normal. If they can give us our own independence, let’s go.

“We don’t pray for war now, but this (the Fulani issue) can cause it because you can’t be a stranger in your home.”

Biafra: State Has No Witnesses to Bring Against Nnamdi Kanu, Says Defense

A supporter of pro-Biafra leader Nnamdi Kanu holds a photograph of Kanu at a rally in Abuja, Nigeria on December 1, 2015. Kanu has been in detention since October 2015 and his trial has been pushed back until June.
A supporter of pro-Biafra leader Nnamdi Kanu holds a photograph of Kanu at a rally in Abuja, Nigeria on December 1, 2015. Kanu has been in detention since October 2015 and his trial has been pushed back until June.

By Conor Gaffey  |  Newsweek/

The lawyer of pro-Biafra activist Nnamdi Kanu has told Newsweek that the Nigerian government has no witnesses to bring against his client as Kanu’s counsel seeks to overturn a ruling that witnesses in the trial could be anonymized.

Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is facing six counts of treasonable felony — that carries a maximum life sentence in Nigeria — but denies the charges. A British-Nigerian dual national, Kanu, who is also the director of underground station Radio Biafra, was arrested in Lagos in October 2015 and has been held in detention since then.

The Federal High Court in the Nigerian capital Abuja ruled on March 7 that witnesses in the case, which has garnered significant attention in Nigeria, should be allowed to testify from behind a screen in order to protect their identities. The decision came despite a previous ruling by Judge John Tsoho on February 19 that witnesses could not wear masks while testifying.

On April 20 the same court rejected an application by Kanu’s counsel to have proceedings stayed while an appeal against the March 7 decision was processed by the Nigerian Court of Appeal. Tsoho ruled that Kanu’s application did not follow due process and that he would continue to hear the case until a higher court — such as the appeals court — ordered a stay of proceedings, according to Nigeria’s Channels TV.

The trial has been adjourned until June 20 and Kanu is due to appear in court for a bail hearing on May 5.

Speaking to Newsweek after the ruling, one of Kanu’s lawyers, barrister Ifeanyi Ejiofor, says that the defense team will now escalate their application for a stay in proceedings to the Court of Appeal and would also ask for the case to be transferred to another judge as they had lost confidence in Tsoho.

Ejiofor adds that allowing witnesses to testify anonymously could allow the prosecution to unfairly prejudice the trial. “If you give them that, they will bring anybody they want,” says Ejiofor. “You cannot accuse somebody in public and try him in secret…They [the witnesses] have to come to the public and testify in public. Let us see them in open court.”

“The point is that they have nobody to come and testify against our client. That’s the simple truth,” says Ejiofor.

Kanu’s arrest led to a wave of protests across Nigeria and has reignited secessionist sentiment among supporters of Biafra, which existed as a federal republic between 1967 and 1970.

The declaration of Biafran independence in 1967 by Nigerian military officer Odumegwu Ojukwu sparked a three-year civil war between Biafran forces and the Nigerian military. The war claimed more than a million lives, with many Biafrans dying of starvation after a blockade was enforced around the borders of the region that lies in modern southeast Nigeria.

x Close

Like Us On Facebook