Dedetwo:


There are certain things constitutional provisions or lack thereof cannot stop in human nature. When groups of people have cultivated the idea of secession, there is no legal teaching that can stop it. It may takes years yet it must come to accomplishment.

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.

kayfra:


Acknowledged. But it's not enough to cultivate an ideology but also to plan on achieving the objective. For example I can plan on becoming a billionaire but if I don't work towards becoming one and work within legal parameters. I'd either end up broke or end up in jail. It will just be a pipe dream.

Dedetwo:


Bros there is no discrete approach to solving certain problems. What you may term as "the way" may be considered as "no way" by another individual. I have not seen anything wrong with the approach of IPOB and MASSOB. These groups have kept the awareness of their movement alive for many years and getting large number of people equally interested in them.

Anticabal:


Oga you dull no be small. The absence of referendum in your fraudulent constitution that even the Daura DSS use to wipe their butts does not delegitimiize referendum. If the law is silent on a certain thing, that thing cannot be said to be illegal.
There was no referendum in the british constitution that allow the scots to have their say and your constitution is modelled after the British constitution. So go and siddon or go school.

kayfra:


If there job id to establish awareness before the real battle begins then they've done good. But you need to be aware that outside of an awareness, their job is done.

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

Dedetwo:


Bros any group that has radio waves beaming broadcasts to people who ordinarily would not know their existence has jobs and in my book doing well too.

OfoIgbo:
I 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

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

TRUTHTOPOWER:
United Nations by its charter of 1945 IS NOT a supranational government. The Corfu Channel case, 1949; Nicaragua case of 1986. laid to rest the principle of non-interference and territorial sovereignty. This principle itself became part of customary law of nations (jus cogens) as far back as 1648 under the Treaty of Peace (Westphalia).

Territorial Sovereignty being part of just cogens is also regarded as a pre-emptory norm that cannot be modified except by another norm of similar character. The famous exceptions are under humanitarian laws. for you to invoke IHL, there must be armed conflict to such an extent that shocks the conscience of humanity. Think of Libya Syria, Sudan, Rwanda and Somalia. this will bring about the principle of Responsiblity to Protect or Uniting for Peace.

Remember that UN was already in existence prior to the civil war of 1967. the humanitarian conditions then only attracted sympathy of the international community. Nigeria has assumed greater status in the UN now. Keep the Palestine struggle in mind.

From the above the rule is clear: no interference. successes in separations such as USSR was internally achieved by relevant parties.

Will Biafra be an exception to the UN rule? who knows. but you cannot invoke UN without the abhorrent levels of humanitarian conditions as we have in every other place where UN intervened. At that, Only South Sudan after 30 years of civil war could lay claim to success.

Is there a way to Biafra. Yes. Dialogue! The alternative under UN HAS BEEN war - WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION.

Keep in mind that Diplomacy is the language of UN not threat or insults of whatever kind. UN has never considered threats and insults as a legitimate mode of communication in any of its august meetings. cheers!

N.B. Kayfra. you may wish to expand your original post in the light of international principles above.

TRUTHTOPOWER:
United Nations by its charter of 1945 IS NOT a supranational government. The Corfu Channel case, 1949; Nicaragua case of 1986. laid to rest the principle of non-interference and territorial sovereignty. This principle itself became part of customary law of nations (jus cogens) as far back as 1648 under the Treaty of Peace (Westphalia).

Territorial Sovereignty being part of just cogens is also regarded as a pre-emptory norm that cannot be modified except by another norm of similar character. The famous exceptions are under humanitarian laws. for you to invoke IHL, there must be armed conflict to such an extent that shocks the conscience of humanity. Think of Libya Syria, Sudan, Rwanda and Somalia. this will bring about the principle of Responsiblity to Protect or Uniting for Peace.

Remember that UN was already in existence prior to the civil war of 1967. the humanitarian conditions then only attracted sympathy of the international community. Nigeria has assumed greater status in the UN now. Keep the Palestine struggle in mind.

From the above the rule is clear: no interference. successes in separations such as USSR was internally achieved by relevant parties.

Will Biafra be an exception to the UN rule? who knows. but you cannot invoke UN without the abhorrent levels of humanitarian conditions as we have in every other place where UN intervened. At that, Only South Sudan after 30 years of civil war could lay claim to success.

Is there a way to Biafra. Yes. Dialogue! The alternative under UN HAS BEEN war - WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION.

Keep in mind that Diplomacy is the language of UN not threat or insults of whatever kind. UN has never considered threats and insults as a legitimate mode of communication in any of its august meetings. cheers!

N.B. Kayfra. you may wish to expand your original post in the light of international principles above.

zendy:



[b] Some people make me laugh. The constition is not greater than the people. When it comes to the issue of Nigeria and the secession question, there are important questions to answer:


Who mandated Lugard to create Nigeria?

Did Lugard seek the permission of the indigenous ethnic such as Yoruba, Hausa and Igbos before he lumped them together?

Did the ethnic groups willingly give up their sovereignty for the creation of Nigeria?

Answering these questions, one finds out that Nigeria is an illegal entity. A fraud has no legitimacy. When Lugard created Nigeria with the 1914 amalgamation, he inserted a clause in it that after one hundred years, any of the ethnic nationalities which was not happy with Nigeria was free to go. Something similar happend with Hong Kong. Britain signed an agreement to control Hong Kong for 100 years. In 1997 after 100 years, Britain withdrew administration of Hong Kong. The reason why referendum is very important is because it is the only thing which grants a country legitimacy. Nigeria remains an illegal entity without it [/b]

zendy:



[b] Some people make me laugh. The constition is not greater than the people. When it comes to the issue of Nigeria and the secession question, there are important questions to answer:


Who mandated Lugard to create Nigeria?

Did Lugard seek the permission of the indigenous ethnic such as Yoruba, Hausa and Igbos before he lumped them together?

Did the ethnic groups willingly give up their sovereignty for the creation of Nigeria?

Answering these questions, one finds out that Nigeria is an illegal entity. A fraud has no legitimacy. When Lugard created Nigeria with the 1914 amalgamation, he inserted a clause in it that after one hundred years, any of the ethnic nationalities which was not happy with Nigeria was free to go. Something similar happend with Hong Kong. Britain signed an agreement to control Hong Kong for 100 years. In 1997 after 100 years, Britain withdrew administration of Hong Kong. The reason why referendum is very important is because it is the only thing which grants a country legitimacy. Nigeria remains an illegal entity without it [/b]

TRUTHTOPOWER:
United Nations by its charter of 1945 IS NOT a supranational government. The Corfu Channel case, 1949; Nicaragua case of 1986. laid to rest the principle of non-interference and territorial sovereignty. This principle itself became part of customary law of nations (jus cogens) as far back as 1648 under the Treaty of Peace (Westphalia).

Territorial Sovereignty being part of just cogens is also regarded as a pre-emptory norm that cannot be modified except by another norm of similar character. The famous exceptions are under humanitarian laws. for you to invoke IHL, there must be armed conflict to such an extent that shocks the conscience of humanity. Think of Libya Syria, Sudan, Rwanda and Somalia. this will bring about the principle of Responsiblity to Protect or Uniting for Peace.

Remember that UN was already in existence prior to the civil war of 1967. the humanitarian conditions then only attracted sympathy of the international community. Nigeria has assumed greater status in the UN now. Keep the Palestine struggle in mind.

From the above the rule is clear: no interference. successes in separations such as USSR was internally achieved by relevant parties.

Will Biafra be an exception to the UN rule? who knows. but you cannot invoke UN without the abhorrent levels of humanitarian conditions as we have in every other place where UN intervened. At that, Only South Sudan after 30 years of civil war could lay claim to success.

Is there a way to Biafra. Yes. Dialogue! The alternative under UN HAS BEEN war - WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION.

Keep in mind that Diplomacy is the language of UN not threat or insults of whatever kind. UN has never considered threats and insults as a legitimate mode of communication in any of its august meetings. cheers!

N.B. Kayfra. you may wish to expand your original post in the light of international principles above.

HiddenShadow:
I laugh at people who thinks that UN referendum can't take place in Nigeria when it took place in Britain/ Scotland.

Nigeria better negotiate now that there is time

zendy:



[b] Some people make me laugh. The constition is not greater than the people. When it comes to the issue of Nigeria and the secession question, there are important questions to answer:


Who mandated Lugard to create Nigeria?

Did Lugard seek the permission of the indigenous ethnic such as Yoruba, Hausa and Igbos before he lumped them together?

Did the ethnic groups willingly give up their sovereignty for the creation of Nigeria?

Answering these questions, one finds out that Nigeria is an illegal entity. A fraud has no legitimacy. When Lugard created Nigeria with the 1914 amalgamation, he inserted a clause in it that after one hundred years, any of the ethnic nationalities which was not happy with Nigeria was free to go. Something similar happend with Hong Kong. Britain signed an agreement to control Hong Kong for 100 years. In 1997 after 100 years, Britain withdrew administration of Hong Kong. The reason why referendum is very important is because it is the only thing which grants a country legitimacy. Nigeria remains an illegal entity without it [/b]

kayfra:


Which is awareness. Awareness is separate from the main plans for actualization.

Dedetwo:


I guess such plans are not meant for public consumption.

HiddenShadow:
I laugh at people who thinks that UN referendum can't take place in Nigeria when it took place in Britain/ Scotland.

Nigeria better negotiate now that there is time

Super1Star:


Despite the fact that referendum is entrenched in UK constitution, it took Scotland almost 200years to enforce it. How much more you that your constitution does not recognise it.

zendy:



[b] Some people make me laugh. The constition is not greater than the people. When it comes to the issue of Nigeria and the secession question, there are important questions to answer:


Who mandated Lugard to create Nigeria?

Did Lugard seek the permission of the indigenous ethnic such as Yoruba, Hausa and Igbos before he lumped them together?

Did the ethnic groups willingly give up their sovereignty for the creation of Nigeria?

Answering these questions, one finds out that Nigeria is an illegal entity. A fraud has no legitimacy. When Lugard created Nigeria with the 1914 amalgamation, he inserted a clause in it that after one hundred years, any of the ethnic nationalities which was not happy with Nigeria was free to go. Something similar happend with Hong Kong. Britain signed an agreement to control Hong Kong for 100 years. In 1997 after 100 years, Britain withdrew administration of Hong Kong. The reason why referendum is very important is because it is the only thing which grants a country legitimacy. Nigeria remains an illegal entity without it [/b]

Super1Star:


The constitution is greater than the people until it is amended to suit the people's wish. Infact the constitution will also state how you can amend it.

It is the manual that shows the working and modes operandi of a nation and her people.

For referendum to even stand, or refere-whatever, the constitution must even recognise it or else it is null and void, as seen in the case of the catalonians in Spain and Quebec in Canada and UN CANNOT do nadal, as in zilch, about it.

The approval of anybody was not sought before we were lumped together as a nation. That is a well known fact.

However, the world powers and divided the continent among themselves in 1878 and there is nothing you cannot do anything about it except by going to war or your constitution is amended to recognise referendum and plebiscite .

Dedetwo:



Per the bolded, I guess United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. We really have wise Nigerians.

Super1Star:


Despite the fact that referendum is entrenched in UK constitution, it took Scotland almost 200years to enforce it. How much more you that your constitution does not recognise it.

zendy:


The constitution is greater than the people who made it? What a laugh. The people own the land, the land never owns the people.

Your constitution remains an illegal document because the union of Nigeria that created it is illegal. That's like saying that you going to court for a divorce when you were never married in the first place

kayfra:


Referendum can take place in Nigeria. Implementation of a favorable outcome would not be constitutional unless you amend our Constitution to support the secesion that comes with the result of the referendum.

I thought people understood my post.

zendy:


The constitution is greater than the people who made it? What a laugh. The people own the land, the land never owns the people.

Your constitution remains an illegal document because the union of Nigeria that created it is illegal. That's like saying that you going to court for a divorce when you were never married in the first place

Super1Star:


Stating hey do not have a written constitution does not mean they do not have guiding documents they used as constitution which includes statues, treaties, verdicts etc.

That is their form of constitution.

Who says a constitution must be written as "We the people of ......"?

kayfra:
LIke I said before, the more this is discussed the less you find viable paths to achieve Biafra. No easy paths to tread. One will involve a lot of apologies and ass kissing which the indigenes simply can't do, the other will guaranty loss of lives and property. Either path does not guarantee a favorable result.