The Igbo-Biafra Nationalist Movement and the Indigenous People of Igbo Nation for Self-determination make a case for the Igbo-Biafra zone/region’s (South-East region) right or justification for a possible (remedial) secession from Nigeria in the face of unresolved injustice against the South-Easterners which is elaborated upon in the following key points:

1. Historical Claim to Independence: International law concerning secession and independence places considerable emphasis on the notion of historical claim. Originating from its unique cultural, linguistic, and historical identity that predates colonial borders, the Igbo-Biafra region asserts a historical claim to independence. This sense of distinct identity, which the arbitrary delineation of borders has further strengthened during the colonial era, serves as a foundation for advocating the right to self-determination, which may even encompass a demand for independence under extreme conditions.
Put differently, the Igbo-Biafra Nationalists argue for a redefinition of the Igbo people’s political status, whether it be through outright secession or through significant constitutional reforms that would afford South-East zone or region (Igbo-Biafrans) greater autonomy and self-governance.

2. Gross Human Rights Violations: The Igbo-Biafra Nationalists argue that Nigeria has systematically violated the human rights of the Igbo population. Documented cases of discrimination, violence, and marginalisation against the South-East, predominantly Igbo communities provide a basis for their assertion. International law increasingly recognises the right of groups to secession (if they are willing and able to do so) in situations of extreme oppression and gross human rights violations. The case of the Biafran people, particularly during the Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970), is often cited as an instance of severe human rights abuses, including alleged genocidal acts against the Igbo people. If such violations continue or remain unresolved as it is presently in Nigeria (albeit in a subtle but more systematic application of the structural apartheid system), short-changing the South-East with fewer states (5 states for the South-East zone as against 6 and 7 states for other zones or regions); and in other forms of state-sponsored discriminatory policies against the South-East, they inevitably form a basis for secession under the principle of remedial secession(as alluded obiter to by ICJ in the Kosovo case, made reference to by the African Commission in the case of Katanga vs Zaire, and the UK supreme court in the case of the Scottish National Party on Scottish independence) when the state (in this case, Nigeria) fails to protect a section its citizens(the South-East in this instance) or is the perpetrator of such violations.

3. Discrimination and Lack of Representation: The principle of self-determination is a fundamental concept in international law, frequently associated with safeguarding the rights of minority groups. The purported and persistent discrimination and inadequate representation of the people from the South-East, specifically the Igbo-Biafrans, within the Nigerian government framework is a breach of this principle. In international relations, if a specific group experiences ongoing denial of political representation and discrimination, they may have a valid reason to seek secession as a remedy, particularly if they have already used all available domestic political means to address their grievances. An essential aspect of the argument is the persistent discrimination and inadequate representation of the Biafrans by the Nigerian government. The absence of adequate representation, along with entrenched discriminatory practices, intensifies the argument that Igbo-Biafra possesses a valid justification to pursue self-governance.

4. 2014 National Conference and Structural Imbalance: The participation of the South-East in the 2014 National Conference and the subsequent neglect of its outcomes by the Nigerian government is evidence of the Nigerian state’s unwillingness to address the structural imbalances and grievances of the South-East region. The allocation of fewer states to the South-East compared to other regions is a direct perpetuation of inequality and marginalisation against the South-East. The refusal to implement the decisions of the National Conference as a potential path to redress these imbalances is a failure of the Nigerian state to ensure equal rights and representation, thereby undermining the legitimacy of its claim to territorial integrity. Put differently, the South-East’s involvement in the 2014 National Conference and the subsequent disregard of its outcomes by the Nigerian government highlight a perceived institutional unwillingness to address the imbalances and grievances of the Biafran region. This strengthens the argument that internal political remedies have been exhausted, necessitating secession as a last resort if the South-East can and is willing to do so.

5. Protection from Human Rights Abuses: The Nigerian security forces in the South-East are engaging in deliberate and entrenched human rights violations that are discriminatory in nature. These violations are carried out with the specific aim of ethnic cleansing, primarily targeting the young Igbo population. It is worth noting that these actions are more focused on suppressing self-determination activists rather than addressing terrorist activities, which sets them apart from similar actions taken in other regions. The desire to escape the repetitive cycle of human rights violations caused by the Nigerian government’s use of military force in response to protests or movements in the South-East (Igbo-Biafra zone or region) is the primary motivation behind the push for self-determination in the region. The objective is to establish a governance system that truly respects both individual and collective rights.

6. Rejection of the Ohaneze Ndigbo Petition: The Nigerian government’s rejection of the Ohaneze Ndigbo’s petition to the Oputa Panel, which sought to resolve historical complaints, highlights a broader trend of disregarding the concerns of the Biafran people. The state’s denial represents an unwillingness to actively pursue meaningful reconciliation and effectively address the underlying causes of the conflict.

7. Violation of Terms of Surrender: The modification of Nigeria’s administrative and political systems without the consensus outlined in the 1970 instrument of surrender is a violation of an agreement that was crucial to the Biafrans’ choice to end hostilities and rejoin Nigeria. This breach has the potential to directly undermine the legitimacy of Nigeria’s administration over the region. Specifically, the Nigerian government violated the terms specified in the surrender agreement of the Biafrans in 1970, which mandated that both parties agree upon any changes to the Nigerian system. Sir Louis Mbanefo, the former Chief Justice of Biafra, was adamant about incorporating clause ‘C’ into the surrender agreement. This clause recognised Nigeria's existing administrative and political structure, comprising 12 states. It also stipulated that representatives elected by the Nigerian populace would decide any future constitutional changes. In 1976, General Murtala Mohammed and General Olusegun Obasanjo individually increased the total number of states to 19. General Babangida contributed to the quantity, and General Abacha subsequently raised it to 36(Offodile,2016).

8. Sui Generis Case of Systematic Discrimination: The South-East Igbo-Biafra case is unique (sui generis) due to the entrenched and systematic nature of discrimination and marginalisation by the Nigerian state. The deliberate, intentional, consistent policies that seemingly target the South Easterners for unequal treatment is state-sponsored apartheid, exceeding the threshold of oppression and thereby justifying secession as a remedial measure if the South-East Igbo-Biafrans are willing and able to do so. The brutal Nigerian military oppressions often being carried out and targeted at the self-determination groups and especially the youths who represent the future and the hope in the South-East zone or region (Igbo-Biafra region) constitute ethnic cleansing and are genocidal with the sole intention and purpose to depopulate South-East and gradually exterminate the Igbo population. On the contrary, the security exercise of the security forces in other regions is carried out to combat general criminal activities and terrorism, in which the perpetrators are often treated humanely and rehabilitated.
More insight:

The South-East, predominantly inhabited by the Igbo people, qualifies as a distinct "people" for the purposes of self-determination. The notion of "peoplehood" encompasses shared historical, cultural, and ethnic characteristics that distinguish one group from another. The Igbo people, with their unique language, cultural practices, and historical experiences, undoubtedly fulfill this criterion.

The Igbo-Biafra region possesses a clearly defined territory within Nigeria. The geographical boundaries of the South-Eastern region provide a tangible foundation for territorial integrity and self-governance.

Moreover, the presence of a functioning government within the South-East further reinforces its claim to self-determination. Despite being part of the Nigerian federal system, the region maintains administrative structures and institutions that cater to the needs of its populace.

Additionally, the Igbo-Biafra region boasts a defined population, characterized by its demographic composition and social cohesion. This demographic stability contributes to the region's ability to assert its collective rights and interests.

Furthermore, the capacity of the South-East to engage in international relations underscores its readiness for independent statehood. The region's potential to establish diplomatic ties and participate in global affairs reflects its ability to function as a sovereign entity on the international stage.

Crucially, the Igbo-Biafra people face systemic discrimination based on their race and ethnic identity within the Nigerian state. The historical marginalization and political exclusion experienced by the Igbo community highlight the urgent need for redress and equitable treatment within the Nigerian polity.

In the circumstances, Nigeria's failure to uphold the principle of equal rights and self-determination exacerbates the grievances of the South-Eastern region. The deliberate suppression of the Igbo-Biafra people's internal self-determination, manifested in the restriction to only five states which has lead to unequal political representation and resource allocation, underscores the systemic injustices perpetuated by the Nigerian state.

The Igbo-Biafra issue in Nigeria is an unfortunate, distinctive, and intricate situation characterised by systematic marginalisation and discrimination sanctioned by the state, mostly based on ethnicity and race. The Nigerian state has intentionally implemented a policy of isolating, suppressing, and discriminating against the Igbo people of the South-East region for several decades, effectively establishing a regime similar to apartheid, specifically targeting this ethnic group.
The marginalisation of the South-East zone also referred to as the Igbo-Biafrans, is firmly ingrained in the structure of Nigerian politics and society. This prejudice is not haphazard or coincidental but seems to be a deliberate and organised endeavour by the Nigerian government and its representatives. The existing policies and practices have resulted in a substantial curtailment and confinement of the Igbo ethnic group, so constraining their prospects for economic, social, and political progress. This has been accomplished through diverse methods, such as limited representation in the government, specific economic policies that harm the economic interests of the Igbo society as a whole and a pervasive culture of oppression that impacts all aspects of life for the Igbo population in Nigeria.
This deliberate singling out of the South-Easterners has created a scenario where they are treated as unequal citizens compared to the rest of the Nigerian population. The level of oppression and discrimination has reached a threshold that can be likened to apartheid, where an entire population is systematically marginalised based on their ethnicity. This has not only led to economic and political disenfranchisement but has also fostered a deep sense of injustice and inequality within the country.

The Igbo-Biafra instance is unique because of the prolonged and deeply ingrained character of the marginalisation, which has historical origins and has been sustained across multiple generations. This action constitutes a blatant infringement upon fundamental human rights and the principles of equality and non-discrimination. The current circumstances necessitate a reassessment of Nigerian federal policies and a focused endeavour to rectify these inequities in a way that acknowledges the distinctive obstacles encountered by the Igbo-Biafrans, guaranteeing the preservation of their rights and dignity inside the Nigerian federation.

In brief, historical claims, ongoing and unresolved human rights violations, systemic discrimination and underrepresentation, and the inadequacy of political processes to address these grievances comprise the argument for a potential Igbo-Biafra right to (remedial) secession from Nigeria. Under international law, this complex and multifaceted justification makes a strong case for contemplating secession as a last resort and valid reaction to persistent and unresolved injustice.

In conclusion, the South-East, the Igbo-Biafra region, possesses a compelling justification for (remedial) secession based on the principles of self-determination, historical grievances, and systemic discrimination if they able and willing to do so. International recognition and support for the region’s legitimate claims are essential in addressing the underlying issues and facilitating a peaceful resolution to the ongoing tensions within Nigeria.

Uche Mefor writes as the Convenor of the Igbo-Biafra Nationalist Movement and the Indigenous People of the Igbo Nation for Self-determination.
Contact: 07916752059 (on WhatsApp)