The Supreme Council of Indigenous People of Biafra is among those invited as members to attend the on-going General Assembly of the African Union (AU) in Nairobi, Kenya. A Daily Sun report said the group sent its maiden delegation to the meeting on Wednesday “having been invited like other countries.” This, according to the paper, was sequel to AU’s recent admission of the Indigenous People of Biafra to the Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC). The report quoted Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Council of Indigenous People of Biafra and former President General of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Dr. Dozie Ikedife, as disclosing that the delegation is expected to spend five days in Nairobi, Kenya for the meeting. “We received our invitation from Addis Abbaba the way others received theirs to be part of the meeting. And this means we are getting international recognition and opportunity to interact and present our case at the international level. It is a big leap forward,” Ikedife was quoted as saying. The paper said that there has been a dramatic change in the struggle to actualise the Biafran nation. It added that checks revealed that professionals, intellectuals and diplomats, among the indigenous people of Biafra, home and abroad using legal framework outside the pattern of the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), have taken up the struggle.

Source:https://m.facebook.com/ 1450305525242887/photos/ a.1450307881909318.1073741826.1 450305525242887/1519155638357875/? type=1&refid=8&_ft_=qid.609485 5414366116593%3Amf_story_key.8 694438619253110448&__tn__=%2As

Jonathan buried Nigeria for Biafra to raise,wht a great by the sun of a fisher man. Long live people of Biafra!

sol2galay:
Jonathan buried Nigeria for Biafra to raise,wht a great by the sun of a fisher man. Long live people of Biafra!

why was biafra invited instead of nigeria,
could it mean they ve two representative in african union?

Dont know how far these things are true or how serious they are but looking at it from the outside, it would be a contradiction for a body like the African Union to promote disunity in any African Nation. Not least because it sets a destructive precedent for there are secessionists in almost every nation in Africa and the world.

Actually, there's a conceit somewhere. As i understand it, having read something, cursorily, sometime ago, there's a tacit international agreement endorsed by the UN to grant recognition to Indigenous peoples world wide that are part of a wider sociopolitical structure such as a Nation. For instance a recognition of Inuits in Canada, Sue Indians in America, Kayapo in Brazil as distinct cultural Nations. I think it is likely in this context that African Union - if indeed it happened -granted Biafra recognition.

Litmus:
Dont know how far these things are true or how serious they are but looking at it from the outside, it would be a contradiction for a body like the African Union to promote disunity in any African Nation. Not least because it sets a destructive precedent for there are secessionists in almost every nation in Africa and the world.

Actually, there's a conceit somewhere. As i understand it, having read something, cursorily, sometime ago, there's a tacit international agreement endorsed by the UN to grant recognition to Indigenous peoples world wide that are part of a wider sociopolitical structure such as a Nation. For instance a recognition of Inuits in Canada, Sue Indians in America, Kayapo in Brazil as distinct cultural Nations. I think it is likely in this context that African Union - if indeed it happened -granted Biafra recognition.

the bold above is not clear to me,do yu mean as biafra is agitating for independence,they should be permited to join africa union
Pls make it more comprehensible, am confuse there....
Tanx

biafranking:
the bold above is not clear to me,do yu mean as biafra is agitating for independence,they should be permited to join africa union
Pls make it more comprehensible, am confuse there....
Tanx

Haven't read the AU charter but common sense dictates it cannot, would not unilaterally recolonize/grant sovereign national rights of/to agitators within a recognized sovereign state such as Nigeria. This suspicion, reinforced by the fact that there have been no adverse reaction or protest by Nigeria. Consequently, if any recognition was given at all to Biafra by the AU one can only conclude that it is likely similar to UN's Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Even here there were and are ongoing controversies.

---

Relevant Extracts from wikipedia (please don't sneer):


The Declaration

The Declaration sets out the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples, as well as their rights to culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and other issues. It also "emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions, and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations".[1] It "prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples", and it "promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development". The goal of the Declaration is to encourage countries to work alongside indigenous peoples to solve global issues, like development, multicultural democracy and decentralization.[6] According to Article 31, there is a major emphasis that the indigenous peoples will be able to protect their cultural heritage and other aspects of their culture and tradition, which is extremely important in preserving their heritage. The elaboration of this Declaration had already been recommended by the




Criticism, defiance and "aspirational" nullification

Prior to the adoption of the Declaration, and throughout the 62nd session of the General Assembly, a number of countries expressed concern about some key issues, such as self-determination, access to lands, territories and resources and the lack of a clear definition of the term indigenous. In addition to those intending to vote against the adoption of the declaration, a group of African countries represented by Namibia who proposed to defer action, to hold further consultations, and to conclude consideration of the declaration by September 2007.[19] Ultimately, after agreeing on some adjustments to the Draft Declaration, a vast majority of states recognized that these issues could be addressed by each country at the national level.

The four states that voted against continued to express serious reservations about the final text of the Declaration as placed before the General Assembly.[20] As mentioned above, all four opposing countries have since then changed their vote in favour of the Declaration


Australia

Australia's government opposed the Declaration in the General Assembly vote of 2007, but has since endorsed the declaration. Australia's Mal Brough, Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, referring to the provision regarding the upholding of indigenous peoples' customary legal systems, said that, "There should only be one law for all Australians and we should not enshrine in law practices that are not acceptable in the modern world."

Marise Payne, Liberal Party Senator for New South Wales, further elaborated on the Australian government's objections to the Declaration in a speech to the Senate as:


1) Concerns about references to self-determination and their potential to be misconstrued.

2) Ignorance of contemporary realities concerning land and resources. "They seem, to many readers, to require the recognition of Indigenous rights to lands which are now lawfully owned by other citizens, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, and therefore to have some quite significant potential to impact on the rights of third parties."[21]

3) Concerns over the extension of Indigenous intellectual property rights under the declaration as unnecessary under current international and Australian law.

4) The potential abuse of the right under the Declaration for indigenous peoples to unqualified consent on matters affecting them, "which implies to some readers that they may then be able to exercise a right of veto over all matters of state, which would include national laws and other administrative measures."

5) The exclusivity of indigenous rights over intellectual, real and cultural property, that "does not acknowledge the rights of third parties – in particular, their rights to access Indigenous land and heritage and cultural objects where appropriate under national law."[21] Furthermore, that the Declaration "fails to consider the different types of ownership and use that can be accorded to Indigenous people and the rights of third parties to property in that regard."

6) Concerns that the Declaration places indigenous customary law in a superior position to national law, and that this may "permit the exercise of practices which would not be acceptable across the board",[21] such as customary corporal and capital punishments.

---

In any case, OP states: Biafra Was Invited By African Union

maybe they invited a bunch of Nigerians, acceptable under the Indigenous People framework, to come put their case. Possibly the AU has not even gone as far as the UN in recognizing the Indigenous People framework and perhaps these Nigerians went there as some ongoing movement pushing for the AU adopt a similar position to that adopted by the UN in 2007