Let's say by an "Act of God" a referendum was conducted in the SE and whichever part is included in the proposed Biafra and it passes whatever criteria needed to secede (we can get into what it really takes to get a referendum in a different post). I envisage a looming legal conundrum which will make the actualization of Biafra a major hurdle. We don't have any provision for secession in our Constitution so we need an amendment. Without an amendment, anybody can sue the legality of the new Biafra and break it up in a courtroom.

Long and short of this is, in addition to getting a referendum, we also need a constitutional amendment. The process of amending the constitution is separate from a referendum and it involves the entire country getting to vote on the amendment.

To be honest with you, I think we need Tom Cruise.


Legal perspective needed to correct me if I am wrong. Serious contributions appreciated.

No takers?

There is no clause as such in the constitution!
That is why it is an offence to ask for secession of any kind!
You can only ask for state creation ,local government creation or local district authority

baralatie:
There is no clause as such in the constitution!
That is why it is an offence to ask for secession of any kind!
You can only ask for state creation ,local government creation or local district authority

So we indeed need a constitutional amendment even with a referendum. Then Biafra is not feasible without generations worth of work. The people that are currently fighting for secession have burnt so many bridges that virtually no states would vote to amend the constitution to allow for secession.

I disagree with you.

Bear in mind that the 1999 constitution is a fraud, because at no point did Nigerians convoke a conference in which the constitution was put together
It was the military ruling class, who were mainly from the north, that concocted that constitution and even had the audacity to say WE THE PEOPLE....

What it means is that ICJ can make a ruling that invalidates the contents of Nigerian 1999 constitution based on the fact that is was not really adopted by all the peoples the constitution was meant to hold together. Legal agreements e.g a constitution must be adopted by all parties whose interest the constitution is meant to protect.

You can even argue that at no point did Nigerian agree to invalidate the 1979 constitution which Buhari and his fellow coupists destroyed. I'm sure the 1979 constitution has provisions for those that commit treason, which of course includes Buhari. This can even be roled back to the 1963 repiblican constitution e.t.c

Bottomline is that once UN gets involved, there is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that the Nigerian government can do to stop self determination, if the se and much of ss opt to go that way

OfoIgbo:
I disagree with you.

Bear in mind that the 1999 constitution is a fraud, because at no point did Nigerians convoke a conference in which the constitution was put together
It was the military ruling class, who were mainly from the north, that concocted that constitution and even had the audacity to say WE THE PEOPLE....

What it means is that ICJ can make a ruling that invalidates the contents of Nigerian 1999 constitution based on the fact that is was not really adopted by all the peoples the constitution was meant to hold together. Legal agreements e.g a constitution must be adopted by all parties whose interest the constitution is meant to protect.

You can even argue that at no point did Nigerian agree to invalidate the 1979 constitution which Buhari and his fellow coupists destroyed. I'm sure the 1979 constitution has provisions for those that commit treason, which of course includes Buhari. This can even be roled back to the 1963 repiblican constitution e.t.c

Bottomline is that once UN gets involved, there is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that the Nigerian government can do to stop self determination, if the se and much of ss opt to go that way

Legally 1999 constitution is binding. That is what Nigeria and any international body will recognize. They don't meddle with internal affairs unless there is a breakdown in society. UN or ICJ have zero jurisdiction over a sovereign state in the absence of a full blown war.

Let's even revisit 1979 constitution just for the hell of it. We don't have any allowance for secession so it's still the same legal conundrum.

kayfra:


So we indeed need a constitutional amendment even with a referendum. Then Biafra is not feasible without generations worth of work. The people that are currently fighting for secession have burnt so many bridges that virtually no states would vote to amend the constitution to allow for secession.

It was discussed at the last national conference!
There is no clause,so there is nothing to amend!
And the house that can discuss it is the Nass and itself cannot insert it!
And since referundum is not recognised by the constitution.Nothing is permitted.

baralatie:
There is no clause as such in the constitution!
That is why it is an offence to ask for secession of any kind!
You can only ask for state creation ,local government creation or local district authority

Are you sure that 1999 constitution did not guarantee the freedom of self-determination?

Dedetwo:


Are you sure that 1999 constitution did not guarantee the freedom of self-determination?

Nada. You can prove wrong though. I love to learn.

Dedetwo:


Are you sure that 1999 constitution did not guarantee the freedom of self-determination?

Yes!I am sure of it!
You need to be where I was last yearyear.the shock on some faces was not funny!
There is no clause,provision or edict that cover such activity!

baralatie:

It was discussed at the last national conference!
There is no clause,so there is nothing to amend!
And the house that can discuss it is the Nass and itself cannot insert it!
And since referundum is not recognised by the constitution.Nothing is permitted.

No clause meaning, no legal backing so it can be contested in court and promptly dissolved. A constitutional amendment will involve more than NASS so groups that want Biafra have to play nice.

Same issue in USA and many countries. One of the reasons secession is extremely difficult without political alliances.

baralatie:

Yes!I am sure of it!
You need to be where I was last yearyear.the shock on some faces was not funny!
There is no clause,provision or edict that cover such activity!

I do not know if there is any constitution that explicitly guarantees act of secession.

Dedetwo:


I do not know if there is any constitution that explicitly guarantees act of secession.

China added it and once they got Tibet they removed it. Old USSR and Burma had and also removed it.

Let the people of Nigeria decide then

kayfra:


No clause meaning, no legal backing so it can be contested in court and promptly dissolved. A constitutional amendment will involve more than NASS.

Same issue in USA and many countries.

Well! the USA before almagamation and after almagamation are totalling different.the majorities rule in the u.s is heavily entrenched so it is more easier to amend than to think of insertion.
And amending "na die" for america

As for Britain,it is a well total,different "wahala".
They will shoot the person first before listening to insertion

ojeota:
Let the people of Nigeria decide then

People of Nigeria have to decide to change our Constitution to allow for secession. People that want Biafra now have to organize their representatives to push for a referendum.

Nothing is guaranteed.

Dedetwo:


Are you sure that 1999 constitution did not guarantee the freedom of self-determination?

The constitution does not recognise referendum, self determination and secession. Advocating for any of these is a transgression on the constitution. The present constitution recognises the present entity and taking an inch away from the entity is null and void.


The first thing you must all clamour for is a genuine constitution amendment that will recognise REFERENDUM.

Based on referendum, you can call for plebiscite. Based on the result of the plebiscite, you can secede peacefully.

Other than this process, it is a clear case of invitation to anarchy.

Some people died to uphold the supremacy of the constitution during the last war and their deaths cannot be in vain, until the constitution is amended.

Lalastical please close this thread.
All topics for or against Biafra should be deleted for peace to exist.

kayfra:


China added it and once they got Tibet they removed it. Old USSR and Burma had and also removed it.

That is .Why the Tibet guy ran for his life when he screamed independence!

HiddenShadow:
Lalastical please close this thread.
All topics for or against Biafra should be deleted for peace to exist.

This is a cerebral thread with no insults involved. It will be civil from the beginning to the end.

kayfra:


This is a cerebral thread with no insults involved. It will be civil from the beginning to the end.

For God's sake, stop all Biafra topics be it pro or anti

baralatie:

That is .Why the Tibet guy ran for his life when he screamed independence!

Exactly. Territorial integrity is no joke. UN favors territorial integrity before considering secession requests in the absence of major persecution of the minority groups. We don't have that level of persecution in Nigeria.

kayfra:


Exactly. Territorial integrity is no joke. UN favors territorial integrity before considering secession requests in the absence of major persecution of the minority groups. We don't have that level of persecution in Nigeria.

United Nations does not have powers to interfere or to dissolve its member nations!
But the real issues is how member nations can deliver good governance to its populace and make human lives a lot pleasant and most especially less and less wars!(irrespective of the style of government it chooses to use).

So with all these roadblocks what is the way out? More riots that won't move a needle?

I think the better fight for all is a fight for true federalism. The work is half done.

baralatie:

United Nations does not have powers to interfere or to dissolve its member nations!
But the real issues is how member nations can deliver good governance to its populace and make human lives a lot pleasant and most especially less and less wars!(irrespective of the style of government it chooses to use).

Human rights and better quality of life.

kayfra:


Legally 1999 constitution is binding. That is what Nigeria and any international body will recognize. They don't meddle with internal affairs unless there is a breakdown in society. UN or ICJ have zero jurisdiction over a sovereign state in the absence of a full blown war.

Let's even revisit 1979 constitution just for the hell of it. We don't have any allowance for secession so it's still the same legal conundrum.

First of all, there is no neee for a full blown war before UN gets involved.

Even an aggrieved ethnic group can first of all challenge the legality of the Nigerian constitution in the Nigerian courts, if the group gets an unsatisfactory reply from the supreme court and if the group has the same sort of UN recognition that Ozobu and Ikedife-led Biafran Elders council of IPOB has, they can escalate the case to ICJ and get a favourable ruling. Constitution needs to be agreed upon by all.

Also, if you want to drag back to 1979 constitution, then that will invariably lead to things dragging back to 1963 constitution which is by far, more legitimate than the 1979 constitution. Guess what? 1963 constitution guarantees true federalism and far greater resource control, so Igbos still win

kayfra:


China added it and once they got Tibet they removed it. Old USSR and Burma had and also removed it.

Like I wrote in the previous post, it is very hard to see a country with such clause as guarantee for secession. However, 1999 Nigerian constitution has Fundamental Human Rights Charter. The section of the 1999 Nigerian constitution supports the regional and international rights to self determination.

kayfra:


Human rights and better quality of life.

Yes

Super1Star:


The constitution does not recognise referendum, self determination and secession. Advocating for any of the is a transgression on the constitution. The present constitution recognises the present entity and taking an inch away from the entity is null and void.


The first thing we must all clamour for is genuine constitution amendment that will recognise those REFERENDUM.

Based on referendum, you can call for plebiscite. Based on the result of the plebiscite, you can secede peacefully.

Other than this process, it is a clear case of invitation to anarchy.

Some people died to uphold the supremacy of the constitution during the last war and their deaths cannot be in vain, until the constitution is amended.

The right to Self-determination is supported by Sections 35, 40 and 41 of the Fundamental Human Rights Charter of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Dedetwo:


Like I wrote in the previous post, it is very hard to see a country with such clause as guarantee for secession. However, 1999 Nigerian constitution has Fundamental Human Rights Charter. The section of the 1999 Nigerian constitution supports the regional and international rights to self determination.

Nigerian constitution does not supportbaddres anything that is connected,associated to self determination of a sovereign nor a referundum

kayfra:
Let's say by an "Act of God" a referendum was conducted in the SE and whichever part is included in the proposed Biafra and it passes whatever criteria needed to secede (we can get into what it really takes to get a referendum in a different post). I envisage a looming legal conundrum which will make the actualization of Biafra a major hurdle. We don't have any provision for secession in our Constitution so we need an amendment. Without an amendment, anybody can sue the legality of the new Biafra and break it up in a courtroom.

Long and short of this is, in addition to getting a referendum, we also need a constitutional amendment. The process to amend the constitution is separate from a referendum and it involves the entire country getting to vote on the amendment.

To be honest with you, I think we need Tom Cruise.


Legal perspective needed to correct me if I am wrong. Serious contributions appreciated.

Dedetwo:

The right to Self-determination is supported by Sections 35, 40 and 41 of the Fundamental Human Rights Charter of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Since the Moderators are yet to act, I believe no NL law can be used against me

UN supercedes Nigeria

Once UN decides to have its way, Nigeria has no choice but to obey.

Failure to obey means forceful separation of which Nigeria has no military strength to stop a UN backed Secession.

Dedetwo:


Like I wrote in the previous post, it is very hard to see a country with such clause as guarantee for secession. However, 1999 Nigerian constitution has Fundamental Human Rights Charter. The section of the 1999 Nigerian constitution supports the regional and international rights to self determination.

If it's not too much to ask, csn you provide a quote? Going to search for it myself.