The federal government has‎ continued to hold the self-styled leader of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu in custody by denying him bail. But the case is now sandwiched between fears over national security and Kanu's fundamental human rights. Should government continue to act with scant regard for his fundamental rights due to security concerns? This was one of the critical issues raised here by Shola Oyeyipo, who sampled the opinions of a cross-section of Nigerians

Picked up some four months ago precisely in October 2015, on conspiracy and terrorism charges that were later dropped, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mr. Nnamdi Kanu, is gradually becoming a case study in rights abuse. Although the courts have ruled a few times that he should be released, officials kept pressing new charges just to continue to keep him behind the bars. Fresh six-count charge preferred against him after he was ordered to be released by a Federal High Court, Abuja, include allegations of treasonable felony, maintaining an unlawful society and illegal possession of items, among others.

The charges were reportedly filed by the office of the Attorney General of the Federation, and signed by the federal Director of Public Prosecution, Mohammed Diri. They alleged a plot by Kanu and some persons now at large to cause crises that might force the President and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari, to concede certain parts of Nigeria to a purported Biafra nation. He was also alleged to have been maintaining unlawful society and retaining items belonging to IPOB, among others.

The allegations, the charges said, contain offences punishable under sections 41 (C), and 63 of the criminal code act; as well as section 47(2) (a) of the Customs and Excise Management Act. Two other persons jointly accused in the fresh charges are Benjamin Madubugwu and David Nwawuisi. And with the disposition of the federal government, it does not look like Kanu and co may enjoy freedom anytime soon.

The First Biafra Agitation
No historian, who knows its onions, would ever attempt to capture the story of Nigeria without mentioning the 1967 civil war. It was a war that had its root in Biafra agitation and the impact of that war left a mark of horror on Nigeria’s sociopolitical space ever since.

The Nigerian civil war was a war fought to retain the unity of the country. From the onset, no one was deluded to believe that the Nigerian federation, as it is known today, was a homogeneous country. Far from it! It is a country of various people that were conscripted into one entity by the colonial masters, who decided to keep the country one in order to effectively control her resources for economic interests.
The Governor-General of Nigeria between 1920 and 1931, Sir Hugh Clifford, once described Nigeria as "A collection of independent native states, separated from one another by great distances, by differences of history and traditions and by ethnological, racial, tribal, political, social and religious barriers." - quoted from The Nigeria Council Debate, Lagos, 1920.

Those obvious differences never went away and when political parties were emerging, they were constituted based on ethnic and tribal sentiments instead of national interests. Therefore, instead of unifying Nigerians against the colonial masters, the people were the victims of the political struggles.
After Nigeria attained her independence in October 1960, the next phase of the struggle remained how to consolidate the legacy of political and military dominance of a section of Nigeria over the rest of the federation and it was that melee that led to coup, counter coup and the bloody civil war.

The 1976 Biafra Civil War
Eventually, the Nigerian civil war, better known as the ‘Biafra War’ broke out on July 6, 1967. It was the product of the tense situation that trailed Nigeria since independence in 1960 and it was a situation that has been traced to the geography, history, culture and demography of Nigeria.

The civil war could be said to have been triggered by the coup and the counter coup of 1966 that eliminated the trust that was gradually building among leaders of the major ethnic groups, which would have created the platform to hold the country together.
As at that time, Nigeria had twelve states from the original four regions in May 1967. The former Eastern Region under Lt. Col. Ojukwu felt that creating states by decree and without proper consultation, was an affront to his people – who were already being molested in some parts of the country and as such, declared the South-east region an independent state of Biafra.
Expectedly, the federal government of Nigeria, as it is doing today, considered the move as an illegal attempt by the Igbo people to secede from the country. Efforts were made to amicably settle the crisis but they all proved abortive and when it was obvious that peaceful resolution was not going to work, government had to forcibly restore the region to the country.

To the Nigerian side, the Biafrans would be easy to run over and to the Biafrans the war was that of survival and they were ready to fight to the last man. Therefore, By August 1967, the war had been extended to the mid-western region by the Biafrans soldiers, who were moving to reduce the pressure on the northern front and to threaten the Federal Capital, Lagos.
It was a war that was characterised by political, diplomatic, psychological and military strategies but in April 1969 - after about two years of bloody and destructive fighting, the federal government did not get its envisaged fast victory while at the same time, the Biafrans who had suffered considerable causality and drastically reduced number were still fighting on.

At that point, several peace conferences held were unable to achieve a ceasefire and bring an end to the war. Then, government embarked on an aggressive capturing of the remaining Biafran enclave and by the Christmas of 1969, the civil war was at its tail end.
Knowing full well that his army would no longer be able to sustain the assault coming from the Nigerian Army, the acclaimed Head of State of Biafra, Lt. Col. Ojukwu, fled the war with his immediate family members on the 10th of January 1970 and the new Commander of the Biafran Army, who took over from him surrendered to the federal government on January 14, 1970 and that was the end to the secessionist attempt and bloodletting that followed.

Underbellies That Stoked the War
Two years after independence, the census conducted in 1962 was alleged to be riddled with malpractices and inflation of figures and the people of the Eastern region rejected the result. When a second census was conducted in 1963, the figures were reluctantly accepted. Apparently, the general election of 1964 was the biggest problem. It was allegedly not free and fair as ruling parties in the regions were said to have used all illegitimate means to eliminate opposition parties.

The then president, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and the Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, each sought the support of the Armed Forces and this was the beginning of the involvement of the Armed Forces in partisan politics. That was how the country stood when the Major Kaduna Nzeogwu-led coup of January 15, 1966 took place. The aim of the coup was to establish a strong, unified and prosperous nation, free from corruption and internal strife. But it altered the political balance in the country. All the politicians and senior military officers killed were from the North and Western region.
It was the coup that fast forwarded the collapse of Nigeria and it was stated that: "The federation was sick at birth and by January 1966, the sick, bedridden babe collapsed."

From independence to January 1966, the country had been in a serious turmoil but it was the coup that worsened the situation. Most of the coup planners were of Eastern origin, thus the Northerners in particular saw it as a deliberate plan to eliminate the political heavyweights in the North in order to pave the way for the Easterners to take over the leadership role from them. This led to the May 1966 riots throughout the North during which most Easterners residing in the North were attacked and killed.

Takeaways from the War
The ugly embers of tribalism and sectionalism had been fanned into a deadly flame by all the political leaders. These leaders rode on the crest of this cancerous tribalism and ignorance of the people to power, at the expense of national unity. The war was between the then Eastern Region of Nigeria and the rest of the country. The Eastern Region declared itself an independent state which was regarded as an act of secession by the government of Nigeria. The war was fought to reunify the country.
According to former president Olusegun Obasanjo then: "The only point on which Nigerian political leaders spoke with one voice was the granting by the British of political independence - and even then they did not agree on the timing."

With the granting of independence in 1960, all the dirt swept under the carpet surfaced and Nigeria was faced with problems that emanated from the lop-sided nature of the political divisions of the country and the type of the existing federal constitution, and the spirit in which it operated. This is part of the reasons why some political leaders and watchers of the Nigerian political history have continued to harp on the urgent need for Nigeria to go for constitutional conference to enable her sustain its oneness in unity.
Enter the New Face of Biafra
Many years after the first Biafran agitation, Nigerians are faced with a new secession threat led by Mr. Nnamdi Kanu. The embattled pro-Biafra leader, who is currently facing treasonable felony charge, has been advocating another arm struggle and bloody approach to actualise the Biafra dream.
Pushing his agenda under the umbrella of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Kanu, who is also the Director, Radio Biafra, has said that the death of some Biafrans is inevitable as in the case of the first agitation but that this time around, their sacrifice will be worth it in the end when Biafra eventually becomes a reality.
In a message conveyed through his brother, Mr. Emmanuel Kanu, Kanu was quoted to have said that “They will kill us but by the end, Biafra will come.”

Justice John Tsoho had on January 20, 2016 ordered Kanu to be remanded in custody of the Nigeria Prison Service, Kuje, Abuja, till the end of his trial for treason. Aside IPOB, members of the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), have also been on the frontline of the call for actualisation of the Biafra agenda and just last Thursday, the body said it would make Nigeria ungovernable if the federal government fails to conduct a referendum in the South Eastern part of the country.
Pro-Biafran groups are demanding a referendum in the region to enable the people decide whether they wish to secede or remain in Nigeria through voting because to them, a majority of people in the region would vote in favour of a separation from Nigeria.
MASSOB’s National Director of Information, Samuel Edeson, said the agitators would fight government with everything at their disposal. According to him, some of the instruments they intend to use include instigating civil disobedience and ‘sit at home’ strikes, in the South-east and Lagos.

Drumbeats of a New War
The drumbeats of war are already sounding as the agitators are not relenting. On the other hand, President Muhammadu Buhari categorically stated his intention for Kanu during his maiden media chat when he reiterated that the ring leader of the call for Biafra state is facing trial for treasonable felony.

Last year, the Chief of Air Staff, Air Marshal Sadiq Abubakar, had read riot act to those calling for a secession of the South-east from Nigeria to form an independent nation of Biafra. The military boss warned that the armed forces are empowered by the constitution to suppress what he described as insurrection or civil disobedience.
He argued that troops have to use necessary force to suppress this kind of crisis. “For the avoidance of doubt, the military’s Rule of Engagement sets out the circumstances and limitations under which the military can enforce laws under situations of unrest, agitations and civil disobedience.” he said.

The General Officer Commanding (GOC), 3 Armoured Division, Major-General Hassan Umaru also warned the groups against committing felony, while also pointing to the rules of engagement for internal security operations. He noted that the constitution of Nigeria empowers the Armed Forces to suppress insurrection and to restore order, when a situation is going out of hand.
“The Nigerian Army would like to send an unequivocal warning to all and sundry, more specifically to all those threatening and agitating for the dismemberment of the country, committing treasonable felony and arson as well as wanton destruction of lives and property.
“Once deployed, we shall apply the ROE to the letter. It is however hoped that such circumstances would not arise that we should be deployed on such operations because, within the ambit of the law, we shall apply the ROE to the fullest.

“It is the duty of an officer or soldier to ensure the enforcement of law and order in conjunction with other security agencies, troops are duty bound to intervene in any situation to avoid a breakdown in peace and stability of an area, where they are deployed,” he noted.
The presidency through Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo has also warned those behind the Biafra republic to have a rethink, saying the federal government would not fold its hands and allow anyone to plunge the country into crisis.
“We need to build the civic capacity to defeat the false and dangerous premises and assumption of violence extremism. Never again should we allow mindless violence inspired by false and evil precepts to threaten our national security,” Osinbajo said.
It is obvious that those threats are not mere lip service as some of the agitators are no longer there to tell their stories. About ten people were allegedly killed in Aba on Tuesday, February 9, following a protest staged by the IPOB. The supposed peaceful march held in condemnation of the prolonged detention of Kanu ended up bloody.

Twenty other pro-Biafra agitators were reportedly injured in the course of a surprise attack launched by security operatives and as a result, IPOB has said it would switch into a new mode in which it could defend itself against hostilities by Nigerian security agencies.
Though the Ohanaeze Youth Council (OYC), had advised that it was better for Biafra to stay within Nigeria, it warned that it would drag the security operatives to the International Court of Justice at The Hague if the agitators are being killed.
The OYC position is that the people of Biafra have their rights, which include self-determination, which the Nigeria security agencies are infringing upon.

Debating the Issue
National Assembly member representing Kaduna Central senatorial district at the upper chamber, Senator Shehu Sani, was the first person to trace the renewed agitation to forces close to former president, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan. According to him, the increased tempo in the agitation for Biafra was a plan ‘B’ action promoted by pro- Jonathan forces as a way to undermine the Buhari administration.
“The Biafra agitation is a new attempt to destroy the President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration, to ignite a national conflict and cause chaos, pandemonium and confusion. It is not reflective of the interest and generality of the Igbo people.
“Those attempting to wake up the Biafran course are of three categories. The first are young men with no knowledge of the tragedy, suffering and hardship Nigerians endured during the Civil War. The second category are desperate forces hiding behind the Biafran agitation to undermine our national unity and destroy the Buhari administration. And the third group is simply warmongers, who want crisis in an era of peace and progress. So, I will say this in clear terms: Nigeria is an indivisible entity and we have since gone beyond the Civil War”.

Somewhat close to Sani’s allegation, former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Chief Anyim Pius Anyim has repeatedly alleged that some individuals are working covertly to associate him with the Biafra agitation.
Anyim has maintained that he has no hand in the fresh calls for secession and that the plan to link him to it was baseless.
But the Nigerian Nobel laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka, who noted that the fresh Biafra agitation did not come to him as a surprise said the federal government should adopt diplomacy in its handling of the renewed agitations for an independent state of Biafra. He said time is now for government to sit down and discuss with the groups and find an amicable resolution to the issue.
“I wrote an article during the war and I said Biafra cannot be de­feated but people misunderstood what I was saying. I said once an idea has taken hold, you cannot destroy it. You may destroy the people, the carrier of the idea on the battle field but ultimately that is not the end of the story.

“Let us not take the position that ‘let us not talk about it’, ‘under my watch, this cannot hap­pen’ and things like that. Go into that environment and ask what is it that we can do to make you feel part of this entity. These are the ad­vantages of a state. Listen to some other Biafrans and ask them why they want to stay.
“This is what we are ready to push as the overall governance authority in this area. Don’t go around saying ‘the sov­ereignty of this nation is indivisible, is not negotiable.’ That kind of language to me only makes matters worst. So let us sit down and talk once again about restructuring the nation in a way which no part of it will want to leave.
“The agitations, for me, are not surprising; it should be expected to happen sooner or later,” Soyinka said during a television interview.
Former president, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo has also harped on the need for better dialogue as a way to resolving the Biafra issue instead of beating war drums.
“Our differences could only be addressed when issues are discussed instead of going to war. We do not need another civil war. We had fought one before. I was part of it.

Obasanjo, who who spoke recently at the unveiling of a banquet hall named after him by the Vice President, Centre for Policy and Foreign Engagement, Dr. Agbai Eke Agbai, at the burial of Mama Enyidya Beatrice Agbai, in Abiriba, Abia State, said: “I saw with my eyes. I heard with my ears. I smelled with my nose. What we need is better communication. And I am here to communicate with you.”
A chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Dr. George Moghalu, is of the view that the new agitation for Biafra is not the same as what was experienced in the 60's. He therefore implored MASSOB and IPOB leaders to embrace dialogue in their agitation instead of violence.
“Biafra is the state of the mind, and the Biafra they are talking about now is not the Biafra of the 60s. The point I am making is that if there are issues we feel very strongly about as a people let us put it on the table and discuss it logically, so we can protect our interest and not violently.

“In a democratic process the only acceptable way to do things is to dialogue. I have told my people, South Easterners, to create an opening for us to discuss with government (national, state or local) without threatening the sovereignty of the nation. You may have a good case and present it wrongly,” he opined.
But while the debate subsists, Kanu remains behind the bars because the president, it is alleged, wants him there. This is with scant regards to his basic and fundamental human rights. Whether government will continue to hold Kanu on the pretext that he was a security threat or would allow the case assume its full bend without recourse to manipulation.

Importantly is that government is unable to sufficiently justify its abuse of Kanu’s rights as well as its palpable disregard for the rule of law in many instances. Even those put in Guantanamo Bay are being accorded minor privileges despite not being tried on the US soil otherwise the accused in that facility would have been able to access first class justice system, the offences notwithstanding.
For as long as government is willing and ready to dialogue with the Boko Haram, it would have no justification to continue to keep Kanu behind bars, while the members of his group are being killed on a daily. Kanu might have regaled in excesses to advance the cause of the group; it is no justification for what government is doing with the rights of one of its subjects and not defensible anywhere.

chriskosherbal:
Let peace reign