₦airaland Forum

Focus on the topic. We're trying to better lives. You shouldn't loathe yourself this much even if political cluelessness means nothing to you.

FSBoperator:
Oh you are calling on Trump and US to reject any candidate in next years election other than Obi emerging the winner.

Have you finished writing to UN to get Finland to free Simon Ekpa ?

Be my guest. The more, the merrier and the attraction to look deeper!

LegendHero:
I will write one to Trump telling him that Tinubu is the best president since 1900.

I heard if we write letter to Trump consistently for 21 days, he will instruct INEC not to conduct any election and just swear in Jagaban for the next 16 years.


God bless President Bola Tinubu

I just logged 8 hours side hustle in addition to my business here.

Four hours of today money will pay for two letters, one for me and one for a fellow who is looking for job here!

We'll do our bit!

Let me sleep now..... Tomorrow morning I will answer these CATs

I personally will contact the US EMBASSY for official appointment and endorsement of letters to Trump, before sending and to physically complain about the US neglecting it's obligations in promoting democracy in West Africa, especially Nigeria.

Mr. Tinubu must conduct a transparent 2027 elections

Sacrifice just 2 hours shift of money.... Prepare your letter, buy envelope, walk into PostNord or your postal shop. Buy stamp and send. Those tracking the metrics will follow up

Whatever CATs accuse you of, check well..... there lies their fear. But it's not for CATs in Nigeria.

I wish CATs in Europe will be bold enough to come out of their closet

WizardOfNG:
Stop talking nonsense. Even your mention about Davido shows you are desperate and misguided. Trump cannot interfere in our internal political affairs same as Tinubu can never have any influence over how the USA runs her politics.

You guys are fond of lobbying nations in the West like the USA, UK etal to help you interfere in the affairs of your nation that is sovereign and independent.

Yet, where has it got you? You play "food is ready" politics, typified by Obi, and don't build anything, anyone or political bridges/alliances yet you want to lead Nigeria you badmouth locally and abroad always and 24/7.

Forget this noise. Next year is for PBAT. Elections will be free and fair. Tinubu will win comfortably.

Thanks for reading.... but it's not for you. It's for Nigerians in West.

Better still you can write Trump admitting Tinubu will conduct Free & credible elections.

By the way, why are CATs triggered when Trump is mentioned?

Let me confirm before I drop the routing address, ensuring those who has Trump’s ears on politics, Transparency and accountability receive the letters on behalf of Trump and must as an obligation of duty bring it to his hearing for action or way forward.

Trust me, that’s what Davido plans to if Tinubu dare rig Osun election, but as a US citizen, he can easily get Trump’s attention via his local congressman.

We are not US citizens but residing in the West place on us, a far more greater advantage to press changes at home from here.

Let’s do our bit.

NIGERIANS IN THE DIASPORA, PLEASE LISTEN. THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW.

If you are Nigerian and living abroad, I am asking you to do something simple but potentially consequential for the future of our country.

Give just two hours of your time.

If you are working in the West, imagine what two hours of your ordinary work shift represents. For a relatively small amount of money printing, postage, and perhaps with a few dollars, Euros or pounds, you can make your voice heard where it matters.

Write a letter to the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, through the White House Chief of Staff or a senior political adviser. I will drop the address to route your letters. Not emails. A staff can easily or unknowingly spam the email without ever opening or logging it in.

Do not make it a partisan letter. Do not ask America to choose Nigeria’s next president.

Ask America to stand for something much more fundamental:

A FREE, FAIR, TRANSPARENT AND CREDIBLE NIGERIAN ELECTION.

Your letter should raise concerns about the risks you believe Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the leadership of INEC, influential political actors, and relevant judicial institutions could pose to the credibility of the 2027 electoral process—and ask that those concerns receive serious diplomatic attention and independent scrutiny.

Demand that the United States use its considerable diplomatic influence to encourage Nigerian institutions and political actors to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

Tell President Trump that Nigeria matters.

A credible election in Nigeria is not only good for Nigerians. It has implications for regional stability, migration, security, economic cooperation and, indirectly, the interests of American taxpayers.

And there is another reason this matters to Nigerians living abroad.

Millions of Nigerians in the diaspora still want to come home. Many would gladly consider returning if they could have confidence in a stable, transparent and accountable Nigeria where elections genuinely reflect the will of the people. Such that if a leader fails on it’s obligations, the next election circle will help right wrongs.

But that confidence must start somewhere.

It starts with a credible election.

We cannot continue to complain from social media while doing nothing beyond pressing “share.”

This is not about fighting anyone.

This is not about violence.

This is not about supporting one political party over another.

It is about defending the principle that Nigerians—not politicians, not electoral officials, not judges, and not powerful individuals—must determine who governs Nigeria.

Imagine thousands of Nigerians across America, Britain, Canada, Europe and elsewhere sending respectful, well-reasoned letters expressing the same democratic concern.

One letter may be ignored.

A critical mass of peaceful, coordinated civic voices is much harder to ignore.

So please, don’t just complain.

Write your letter.

Spend two hours worth of work shift.

Spend the postage.

Make your voice count.

Ask the United States to use its influence to support the Nigerian people’s right to a credible, peaceful and transparent 2027 election.

🇳🇬 Nigeria belongs to all of us—including those of us who live abroad.

THE TIME IS NOW.

To reach President Donald Trump directly and through his most trusted aides, use the following mailing address:

Address 1:
President Donald J. Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500
USA

What to put on the letter before putting the address below it:
PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP — RE: DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE IN NIGERIA

Address 2:
Vice President JD Vance
Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20501, US.

What to put on the letter before putting the address below it:
VICE PRESIDENT JD VANCE — RE: DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE IN NIGERIA

Address 3:
Chief of Staff Susie Wiles
The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500, USA

What to put on the letter before putting the address below it:
MS. SUSIE WILES, CHIEF OF STAFF — RE: NIGERIA

Address 4:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio
U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20520, USA

What to put on the letter before putting the address below it:
THE HONORABLE MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE — RE: NIGERIA


Address 5:
National Security Council
The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500, USA

What to put on the letter before putting the address below it:
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL — RE: NIGERIA DEMOCRATIC STABILITY

Address 6:
Office of Public Liaison
The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20500, USA

What to put on the letter before putting the address below it:
OFFICE OF PUBLIC LIAISON — RE: NIGERIA DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE

Sample of how a letter that would garner interest at the White House would look like:

URGENT APPEAL: PROTECT DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS AND THE RULE OF LAW IN NIGERIA.

Dear President Trump,

I am a concerned citizen of Nigeria, writing from the Kingdom of Sweden, to draw your attention to what I believe is a grave risk to Nigeria’s democratic process and the will of its people.

The elections concerns Mr. Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a quasi-independent electoral umpire (INEC), a crop of corrupt judges and politicians bent on thwarting the Will of the people of Nigeria. The intentions of Mr. Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been clear for all to see. Recently he has forced changes in the Nigeria senate led by Mr. Godswill Akpabio, to drop “forgery” as ground for disqualification or election petition. This is particularly important because Mr. Bola Ahmed Tinubu identity, education is subject to controversies and secrecy. I respectfully demand the US government which your noble personality represent live up to its obligations in promoting democracy and rule of law around the world.

The upcoming electoral environment raises serious concerns about the independence of Nigeria’s electoral institutions, including the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), as well as the integrity of the political and judicial processes surrounding presidential elections. In particular, questions concerning President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s eligibility, identity, educational history, and the transparency of the institutions responsible for resolving such questions deserve careful and impartial scrutiny.

Since Nigeria’s return to democratic rule, many Nigerians have become increasingly disillusioned by the influence of entrenched political elites over the electoral process. We fear that the people’s constitutional right to freely choose their leaders can be undermined when electoral institutions, political actors, or judicial processes are perceived as lacking independence.

These matters deeply disturbs me because since the return of Democracy in Nigeria, a handful of corrupt political elites in Nigeria have high jacked the process of electing the president, in utter disregard for the Will of Nigerians. This became exceptionally noticeable during the Obama administration which the current govt has deep ties to.
Beside the hugh relieve your foresight and actions would provide to the Nigerian people, if you take action on this matter, it has an indirect effect on the American immigration policy you are executing right now. A lot of Nigerians in the US and Canada will head home believing a new era free from corrupt political elites have begun. With this you will write your name in Gold as the Enforcer of Rule of Law in Nigeria where most of your predecessors like Barak Obama have failed.

I write to respectfully urge the United States Government, under your leadership, to uphold its longstanding commitment to democracy, constitutional governance, human rights, anti-corruption efforts, and the rule of law. We particularly ask your administration to consider the principles embodied in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the National Endowment for Democracy Act of 1983, including their emphasis on political rights, democratic institutions, accountability, and the rule of law.

I respectfully ask your administration to pay close attention to Nigeria’s democratic trajectory and to use every lawful diplomatic and executive means available to encourage transparent elections, independent institutions, credible dispute-resolution mechanisms, and respect for the rule of law.

Such leadership would not only provide enormous reassurance to the Nigerian people; it could also strengthen the confidence of Nigerians abroad who may one day wish to return home and contribute to a more democratic and prosperous Nigeria.

Mr. President, history often remembers leaders who stand firmly for democratic principles when those principles are under pressure. I respectfully ask that your administration help ensure that the voice and constitutional rights of the Nigerian people are protected.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,

[Your Full Name]
A concerned Nigerian
Stockholm Sweden.

Take advantage of our weekly free business consultancy.....

This week Free consultancy takes place on Tuesday , tomorrow between 10 am and 2pm. Send us messages via email and Whatsapp. If you are within the country, visit our Stockholm office

The Historical Role of Shell and BP in Nigeria during the Biafran humanitarian crisis.

To understand the relationship between oil, Britain/UK and the Nigerian-Biafran War, one has to go back several decades before 1967.

The story begins with the emergence of Nigeria’s petroleum industry and, in particular, the extraordinary position eventually occupied by Shell-BP. A seismic research has just been concluded and the findings was an overwhelming find: Large reserves of proven Oil & gas deposits in a region that historically fought the British Interests in West Africa, a region peopled by the same sets of Africans that sold the idea of Independence to other Africans! The British establishment were at a loss on how to handle this confidential Find!
Without second-guessing, the British knew the Igbos who led Nigeria at the time would waste no time pivoting to American & Jewish Interests, since it’s largely assumed in American secret correspondence that the Igbos may have been largely Jews who lost some of their Jewish root. An American president famously called them the wandering west African Jews. The British knew they will not allowed this to happen.

This is not speculation. The corporate history is documented.

In 1936, the Royal Dutch/Shell Group established Shell D’Arcy in Nigeria. In 1938, the company received an exploration licence covering the country from the British Crown. The Swedish branch, AB Svenska Shell was established in 1947.
After years of unsuccessful exploration, Shell discovered commercial quantities of oil at Oloibiri in 1956. The company subsequently became Shell-BP Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited, and Nigeria exported its first crude oil in 1958. (Shell Nigeria)

By the time Nigeria gained independence and then descended into political crisis, petroleum had already become strategically important.

And by 1967, Shell-BP was not a minor player.

It was the dominant producer!

The Shell-BP position before the war
According to historian Chibuike Uche’s research, based substantially on British archival records, Nigeria’s total crude production immediately before the civil war averaged about 580,000 barrels per day, with Shell-BP accounting for approximately 84 percent. Gulf Oil Nigeria accounted for about 9 percent and SAFRAP, the French company, about 7 percent. (Based on information from
University of Warwick, which now hosts BP Plc archives)

That figure is critical.

It means that when Nigeria entered war in 1967, the country’s petroleum industry was overwhelmingly connected to a single Shell-BP operation.

And much of the important production was located in the so called Niger Delta and those areas were associated with the former Eastern Region which declared Independence in 1967.

Consequently, oil was not simply an economic issue sitting in the background of the conflict. It was embedded in the geography of the war.

Biafra and the oil question.
When the Eastern Region declared itself the Republic of Biafra in May 1967, the new Biafra government inherited territory containing 95% of Nigeria’s most important petroleum-producing areas.

That immediately created a fundamental problem.

Who had the right to collect the revenues generated by those oil fields?

Lagos, Nigeria ?

Enugu, Biafra?

The multinational companies?

Or some combination of them?

For Shell-BP, the situation was extraordinarily difficult.

The company was a commercial organisation operating in territory whose political status had suddenly become contested. And whose inhabitants have historically viewed British intentions with suspicion , since the British Crown and her legions came with the “Bible” and took over the land in exchange. The theft has ever since been sustained through violence and arms.

Its infrastructure was vulnerable.

Its employees were caught between competing authorities.

Its production facilities were strategically valuable.

And both sides understood the importance of petroleum revenue.

The company’s commercial problem therefore became inseparable from the political conflict.

Britain had interests beyond abstract constitutional principles

This is where the British dimension becomes particularly important.

The British government publicly supported the preservation of Nigeria’s territorial unity. For selfish reasons. Her economy was in tetters due to involvement in WW2. America, the new bulldog on world stage have made her and France give up their colonies as prerequisite to helping them defeat Nazi Germany. The chaos were the perfect storm to reimposed her dominance in her former colony and uproot the vastly educated, comparatively formidable competitor in Nigeria. That was exactly what she did!

There were undoubtedly strategic, diplomatic and geopolitical considerations behind Britain’s position.

But historians have also examined the economic dimension.

Chibuike Uche’s 2008 article in The Journal of African History, based largely on newly available British archival material, argues that British oil interests played a substantially greater role in Britain’s position during the war than was traditionally acknowledged.

His research specifically identifies the protection of Shell-BP’s Nigerian oil investments as an important British concern.

It also points to Britain’s desire to maintain access to Nigerian crude at a time when the country was dealing with oil-supply pressures following the 1967 Middle East crisis.

Uche’s conclusion is not that oil was the only reason for Britain’s policy. Rather, his research suggests that oil was an important component of a much more complicated British calculation.

That distinction matters.
It is historically stronger to say that oil interests influenced the geopolitical environment surrounding Britain’s policy than to claim, without qualification, that Britain fought the war simply because Shell wanted oil.

History is rarely that simple.

The Shell-BP dilemma during the conflict
The company’s position became increasingly precarious as the war developed.

Shell-BP had to deal with competing claims over petroleum revenues and operations.

Biafran authorities sought to exercise control over resources within territory they considered sovereign.

The Federal Government of Nigeria, meanwhile, regarded petroleum resources as belonging to Nigeria and expected companies operating there to recognise federal authority.

This created a commercial and political dilemma that no multinational company could easily escape.

The oil installations themselves became strategically significant. It were all located in the conflict area and they have to pay money to areas where the conflict wasn’t happening.

Control of places such as Bonny, with its important export infrastructure, was therefore not merely about territory.

It was about access to the machinery through which Nigerian crude reached the international market.

The Federal side’s military advances into oil-producing areas consequently had enormous economic consequences.

Oil and the international dimension
The Nigerian-Biafran War was never purely a domestic conflict.

Britain supported the Federal Government.

The Soviet Union also eventually provided substantial military support to Nigeria.

France, meanwhile, developed relationships with Biafra, while other countries pursued their own interests. Israeli support was subtle. Playing American side…. Infact, American stance dictated Israeli policy on Biafra. The British govt deceived America, and Israel almost paid a price for the shortsightedness during it’s own subsequent conflicts with the Arabs (Read our Article on How British Government Struck a Deal with Soviet Union to allow Egyptian Pilots Free access during the Biafra Conflict).

Behind the humanitarian catastrophe and the political arguments was a wider Cold War environment in which strategic resources mattered.

Oil made Nigeria particularly important.

For Britain, Nigeria was an important former colony and commercial partner.

For multinational companies, it was an increasingly valuable petroleum producer.

For the Federal Government, oil revenues represented a crucial source of state power.

For Biafra, petroleum represented an economic resource that could potentially strengthen its claim to independence, back Letters of Credit, fund urgently needed food & medicine for the aged, women and children…..the most vulnerable in then Biafra.

This is why oil cannot be removed from any serious analysis of the war.

There is a temptation, particularly when looking back at a tragedy as enormous as Biafra, to reduce everything to one explanation:

“It was all about oil.”

The historical record does not justify such a simplistic conclusion.

The origins of the war involved political instability, military coups, ethnic tensions, constitutional disputes, massacres and the breakdown of relations between Nigeria’s regions. Blame the Berlin Conference of 1884 for this. The Nigeria federation was a wide pack akin to gathering tribal nations together and calling them Nigeria. See it from
the context of putting Poles, Finns or Swedes and Russians together in one country, Jews and Arabs in one country or the French and Germans in one country and asking them all to get along without conflicts. Who ever designed such a nation has ulterior motives. The results speaks for itself. Nigeria today…..we all know what is happening there!

The humanitarian catastrophe had multiple causes.
The international response was also shaped by Cold War politics, diplomatic calculations, strategic interests and humanitarian concerns.

But acknowledging these factors does not make the oil question irrelevant.

Quite the opposite.

It makes the oil question more interesting.

Because it forces us to ask how economic interests interacted with political decisions.

What happened to Shell-BP after the war?
This is where the story becomes particularly important for our wider investigation.

The war ended in January 1970.

But the oil industry did not disappear.

The corporate structures surrounding Nigerian petroleum subsequently evolved.

The Nigerian government increasingly asserted ownership and participation in the petroleum sector.

In 1973, the Federal Government acquired a 35 percent participation interest in the oil companies.

That participation increased to 55 percent in 1974.

By 1979, further restructuring had taken place, and BP’s shareholding was nationalised while the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation became the dominant government participant in the arrangement. Shell’s own historical timeline records these changes.

The older Shell-BP structure eventually gave way to Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC) and later corporate arrangements involving the Nigerian state and other international oil companies. SPDC remained the sole Joint Venture (JV) partner of Nigeria

This is important because the assets and corporate relationships created during the early petroleum era did not simply vanish.

They evolved.

They were reorganised.

They changed ownership structures.

They entered new joint ventures.

And some eventually became part of corporate histories extending far beyond Nigeria.

This is where our research begins

For us, therefore, the historical question is not simply:

“Did Shell and BP operate in Nigeria during Biafra?”

The answer is already documented.

The more interesting questions are:

What exactly did they own?

Where were those assets located?

What happened to them during the war?

Who controlled them after the war?

How were the assets reorganised?

Which companies became their successors?

Where did those assets eventually end up?

And perhaps most importantly:

What did governments and corporations know and discuss privately while the public was being given the official narrative?

Those questions require archives.

They require corporate records.

They require diplomatic correspondence.

They require board minutes, memoranda, agreements, production figures, government files and ownership records.

The British National Archives, for example, holds extensive High Commission records relating to Nigeria covering the period 1958–1971. We have traced and located several of them and making efforts to recover many of them. We have initiated correspondence with UK Foreign, Commonwealth Development Office using the instrumentality of the FOIA mechanism. Sadly, the most deeply damaging documents referencing the directly responsibility of British establishment to the chaos in Nigeria have been cloak under National Security Laws. We are confident we shall torn open the cloak!

That is precisely why archival research matters.

A newspaper headline from 1968 tells us what the public was being told.

A private memorandum can sometimes tell us what officials were actually discussing.

The uncomfortable intersection

The historical record therefore presents an uncomfortable intersection:

Shell-BP was the dominant oil producer.

Britain had major commercial and strategic interests in Nigeria.

The principal oil-producing territories became central to the Biafran conflict.

The Federal Government was determined to retain control of Nigerian territory and petroleum revenues.

British archival evidence indicates that protecting oil interests was an important consideration in Britain’s policy toward the conflict.

None of these facts, standing alone, proves a grand conspiracy.

But together they demonstrate why the relationship between oil, corporate power, British policy and the Nigerian-Biafran War deserves serious historical examination. And that was what we did. The Find was overwhelming!

And that is exactly where our research continues.

We are not interested in repeating slogans.

We are interested in following the documents.

Because corporations have histories.

Governments have archives.

Assets have ownership chains.

And political decisions leave paper trails.

The deeper we go into those records, the more important one question becomes:

What happened to the economic architecture created during the era of Shell-BP — and how much of that architecture survived the end of the Biafran War under different names, different ownership structures and different jurisdictions?

That is the trail we have been following.

And it is a trail that began long before Simon Ekpa, long before St1, and long before today’s political arguments. Our newest discovery within the last 24 months involved the Finnish Energy conglomerate St1 Group, and it’s billionaire founder Mika Attonnen.

It began with oil!

Please patronise our Consultancy services. Don’t give us donations less they frame it as money laundering. They tried to use the Central bank in an African country to investigate and see if we meet the threshold for money laundering due to patronage from our wonderful clients, but they failed because I avoid funds and payments from unverified sources and any fund must be tied to a service.

They even tried the terrorist angle, but then Igbos are not terrorists we love life and use wisdom instead of terror!

Let’s keep the pressure on the half-breeds!

Sue bambiallah? You funny ohh! Person wet no see road maim HE Peter Obi go waste time on? Common find serious deeds biko

Chaiii so na so una dey reason? Reno can visit Mexico any time he like, but he will be treated as an ordinary Nigerian like you

DomPerignon:
Arrant nonsense.

They won't allow him into their country under any guise if he is rejected as an ambassador.

You simply don’t know how this works….. you Submit your credentials and it enters a queue. If accepted you get appointment for the ceremony named presentation of credentials.

The credentials is submitted before am. It’s accepted or rejected before hand!

Una sef!

DomPerignon:
In Mexico, the presentation of diplomatic credentials is standardly conducted as a consolidated group ceremony rather than through individual meetings. The Mexican President schedules these events at the National Palace to accommodate a busy agenda, typically receiving between 5 and 20 ambassadors in a single session.

Recent examples include former President López Obrador hosting 14 ambassadors in June 2024 and current President Claudia Sheinbaum welcoming 5 in September 2024.

While individual ceremonies can occur during extraordinary bilateral events, they are the exception rather than the rule.

Regarding the specific case of Reno Omokri, nominated by President Bola Tinubu in November 2025 and confirmed by the Nigerian Senate in March 2026, his credentials have not yet been presented.

The most recent group ceremony under President Sheinbaum occurred on September 8, 2025. Given that the administration has held only two such ceremonies in the previous year (May and September) and has not held any yet this year, the delay is procedural, not political.

The absence of a ceremony for Omokri and other pending ambassadors is simply due to the infrequency of these scheduled group events.

Consequently, public petitions urging immediate individual meetings are ineffective, as the process relies on waiting for the next scheduled group session.

So Oga rest.

See person wey e mother still dey feed? People go talk even you too go talk!

DomPerignon:
Everything is food to you guys

May the hunger pangs and fear of hunger never lead you astray

Serve yeye people like that well!

If Ambassador work don full, PA no dey? If Mexico reject am, Afghanistan no dey?

Lordhanzo:
Deceived him and padlocked his loud mouth.

Same thing he did to elrufai. Reno can’t make pim wise sorry for him.

This one confidence pass bulablu own! The 0ld druggie wet know say he dey leave Aso Rock in 2027

dragunov:
You must be strongly delusional for stating that Tinubu will leave power in 2027. You guys are funny o. You can't remove Tinubu by chochocho o. Like, who did you guys like this?

Person wey no fit assure e next meal dey assure Bulablu exit from power in 2027....the boldness though

duro4chang:
I can assure you that BAT will not lose 2027 election

Persistent debate about democratic governance, political succession, corruption, and the enduring influence of former colonial masters in their former colonial territories.

To answer those questions, we must travel back more than 140 years to the Berlin Conference.
Between 1884 and 1885, European elites gathered in Berlin at the invitation of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. The conference fundamentally reshaped Africa.

No African king, chief, scholar, merchant, or representative was invited. Instead, European governments negotiated borders, territories, and spheres of influence as though the continent were empty land awaiting administration. Even at that, their greed couldn't stop them from plugging the world into two needless world wars.

The decisions made in Berlin ignored hundreds of existing kingdoms, ethnic nations, trade networks, and political systems and age long rivalries amongst tribes.

See it in the context of putting Germans and French in the same country as fellow compatriots, or the Poles/Swedes/Finns and Russians in the same federation as citizens and asking them to get along. We have seen the beautiful results: Two world wars, countless other wars and a genocide against the Jews famously dubbed Jewish Holocaust.

That was exactly what the Berlin conference did more than 100 years ago.

We expect the offspring’s of those elites to be better informed than their militaristic parents, but today, the offsprings are themselves, like drunk imperialists, fighting tooth & nail to sustained borders their fathers designed for a people unconnected to them in any way, while redesigning their own problems as situations arises. They have become so engendered to the point of weaponising their own laws, institutions and judiciary against enlightened Africans who dare question their status quo.

To understand today’s political instability in Cameroon, Nigeria or elsewhere in Africa, we must first understand yesterday’s institutions.”
— Emmanuel Ogbuanu, founder Truth Over Empire Initiative.

Dear CATs, no vex abeg. Una don run am street?

favor914:
Busy body wetin concern u with Reno Omokri matter, is he related to u .

Neo-colonialism the new form of black slavery .

UK is now well known and exposed, to the point it now export the dirty deals to Scandinavia countries for execution!

Chairman Looters Association of Nigeria has spoken

No pardon or amnesty for CATs who stole akara to survive BAT and Iya akara

Is there no Lamidi Apapa left to use in NDC?

Biko umu nne mu, what is happening diplomatically with the much publicized appointment of Reno Omokri as ambassador to Mexico's?

CATs una don run Reno street? Now he is a full fledged BAT: neither in the opposition nor ruling service. Upon all the eye service and mumuness, na until Bulablu comot for power in 2027 naim Reno Omokri sef go resume? This kind thing no good ohhh!

If Mexico reject am, Afghanistan no dey? If Ambassadorial job don full special adviser no dey?

Aje!!!!!!

favor914:
Koko Master .

Long Before Simon Ekpa, We Were Already on the Trail of Shell Plc & Bp Plc and their hidden assets connected to the Biafra conflict!

Long before the name Simon Ekpa became a major subject of discussion in Finland, Nigeria and across the Biafran movement in Diaspora or back home, we had already begun following a completely different trail — the trail of Shell Plc, Bp Plc, their historical assets, and the role of multinational oil interests in the tragedy that befell Biafra.

Our research did not begin with Simon Ekpa.

It began with history. The history of British treachery.

We were investigating the assets, corporate structures, archives and historical records connected to the oil industry and its involvement in the events surrounding the Biafran genocide and the Nigerian Civil War. We know we have to work hard and pull up dots.

And we went far beyond Nigeria.

From Rwanda to South Africa; Switzerland to the United Kingdom; the United States to the Netherlands; France, Finland, Denmark and Sweden, we searched archives, spoke with Embassy staff, offer convenience to diplomatic friends, examined historical records, traced corporate relationships and engaged with archivists and researchers.

We were not looking for a convenient story.

We were looking for documents.

And eventually, we stumbled upon something that looked remarkably close to the clue we had been searching for.

But finding a clue is not the same thing as proving a case.

So we began trying to corroborate it. Finally the clue began real in in the summer of 2024.

One of the things that caught our attention was the visit of Nigeria’s Vice President, Kashim Shettima, to Sweden in 2024. That visit, viewed alongside the historical corporate and diplomatic records we had been examining, raised questions that we believed deserved much closer public scrutiny. Our researcher had to shave a labour meeting in 2024, just to document Shettima itinerary. And we struck gold! Lo and behold, he led us straight to Shell/Bp plc hidden assets in Sweden!

Concerning questions about Simon Ekpa, Those questions became even more important as the case of Simon Ekpa unfolded.

Let me be clear about something

We do not support Simon Ekpa or the activities attributed to his so-called Autopilot group, neither are we against the Simon Ekpa or his group.

The allegations made against him by the Nigerian authorities are serious and should be investigated through a fair and transparent legal process.

But regardless of our stance on Mr. Simon Ekpa, it does not mean abandoning the principle of justice.

And it certainly does not mean that every act of violence attributed to the Biafran conflict or the contemporary agitation should automatically be accepted as having been carried out by the people the Nigerian State accuses.

There are incidents that deserve independent investigation.

There are deaths that still demand answers.

There are cases including the killing of Chike Akunyili, the husband of the late Prof Dora Akunyili, that have generated competing narratives and questions about responsibility. Those questions should be investigated on evidence, not settled merely by political convenience.

Then came Finland

As we followed the events surrounding Simon Ekpa’s prosecution and imprisonment in Finland, we began asking a much larger question:

Was this case only about Simon Ekpa, or was there a wider geopolitical, diplomatic and economic story operating behind it?

Our research led us into the complicated intersection of Nigeria, Finland, the United Kingdom and the oil industry.

We examined the historical and corporate relationships involving Shell Plc, BP Plc and St1 Group, including the refinery business in Sweden , the petrol stations in Finland, Sweden and Norway, that has roots in the assets and operations of major oil companies and is now associated with Finnish billionaire Mika Anttonen, founder of the St1 Group.

We began asking questions about ownership, corporate succession, historical assets, political relationships and the interests surrounding energy.

And this is where the story becomes uncomfortable.

Because if our interpretation of the documents is correct, there may be a much deeper history connecting oil, European corporate interests, Nigerian political interests and the Biafran question than the public has been led to believe.

We believe the public deserves to see the evidence and decide for itself.

The documents

During our research, we obtained what we believe are significant historical documents from diplomatic and archival sources, including classified correspondence and records connected to the British diplomatic establishment in Stockholm and Shell Plc.

Among the materials are documents we have described as including letters, memoranda, board minutes and other records.

Some have already been released publicly.

Others have been retained.

Why?

Because research of this nature is not a game.

You verify.

You corroborate.

You preserve the originals.

And you release material responsibly.

We have also faced serious pressure along the way.

We were harassed.

We w intimidated.

We were threatened.

Our top researcher lost a side hustle.

We were investigated.

At one point, according to what we experienced, the pressure extended beyond the people and institutions we initially expected and even involved officials connected to an African central bank.

But eventually, something became clear:

Na dem go tire.

We kept going.

Then we decided to pursue the hunters

At some point, the investigation changed direction.

We stopped merely asking, “Who is pursuing whom?”

We began asking:

Who benefits?

Who owns what?

Who has the political connections?

Who has access to the institutions?

Who controls the narrative?

And who has something to lose if these documents become public?

The hunters became the subject of the investigation.

We began documenting what we believed were attempts at intimidation, information suppression, business sabotage and interference with our research.

We also documented the alleged theft of research equipment, including an iPad and computer, and preserved information concerning matters that we believe certain actors would rather the public never see.

Eventually, we decided to take the fight into the legal arena.

We sued over matters connected to St1 Refinery AB, established through the historical assets of Shell and BP and now associated with St1 Group.

That legal action is part of a much larger effort to force questions about corporate history, ownership, accountability and transparency into the open.

Nigeria. Finland. Britain. Shell. BP. St1. Ekpa. IPOB.

These may appear at first to be separate stories.

We don’t believe they can be properly understood that way without examining the historical connections between them.

Our research has led us to investigate:

a. The historical role of Shell and BP in Nigeria and the Biafran period;

b. The disposition and transformation of oil assets over the decades;

c. The corporate history connecting those assets to Finnish energy interests;

d. The rise of St1 and the role of Mika Anttonen;

e The relationship between Finnish, British and Nigerian interests;

f. The political circumstances surrounding Simon Ekpa’s imprisonment;

g. The rivalry and disagreements within the wider Biafran movement, including tensions involving IPOB;

h. And the question of whether economic and geopolitical interests have influenced how certain political conflicts are prosecuted and presented.

We are not claiming that every connection proves a conspiracy.

We are saying that the connections deserve examination.

And that is precisely what serious investigative research is supposed to do.

Was Simon Ekpa prosecuted — or persecuted?

This is one of the most important questions arising from our work.

Based on the documents and evidence we have examined, we believe there are serious grounds to question whether the Finnish legal process surrounding Simon Ekpa was influenced by political pressure and interests beyond the ordinary administration of justice.

That is our position.

But ultimately, the courts must decide.

If the Finnish judicial system is truly independent, then an appeal should be allowed to operate without political interference.

If there are errors, they should be corrected.

If evidence was improperly obtained or political considerations contaminated the process, those issues should be exposed.

And if the conviction is sound, it should withstand independent scrutiny.

Justice should not fear an appeal.

Our problem is not Finland. Our problem is weaponised justice.

We do not hate Finland.

We do not hate Sweden.

We do not hate Britain.

And we do not hate Europe.

What we oppose is the weaponisation of European institutions, common & criminal laws against Africans in the diaspora.

European states cannot lecture Africa about the rule of law while allowing political interests, diplomatic pressure or selective enforcement to determine who receives justice and who becomes a convenient target.

African dissidents are entitled to the same presumption of innocence, due process and judicial independence that European citizens expect for themselves.

If the law is strong, let it stand on evidence.

If the case is strong, let the evidence speak.

But if political power has entered the courtroom, the public has a right to know.

Why did we continue?
There were easier things we could have done.

We could have walked away.

We could have kept the documents private.

We could have ignored the threats.

We could have pretended that none of this mattered.

But our researcher carries an Igbo title:

Agu Me Che Mba Ndi Igbo 1 Na Scandinavia.

The name carries a responsibility.

It means that when an Igbo person is suffering what we believe to be injustice in Scandinavia, we cannot simply look away — regardless of whether we like that person, agree with their politics or support their organisation.

Justice cannot be conditional on friendship.

Justice cannot depend on political affiliation.

Justice cannot be reserved for people whose opinions we approve of.

And that is why the Simon Ekpa case became relevant to a research project that started years before his imprisonment.

We were already following the oil.

We were already following the archives.

We were already following the companies.

We were already following the documents.

Then, unexpectedly, the Simon Ekpa story crossed our path.

And when we looked closer, we found questions that we believe deserve answers.

So we will continue releasing what we can responsibly substantiate.

We will continue preserving what needs to be preserved.

And we will continue asking the uncomfortable questions.

Because sometimes the people who appear to be hunting the accused are themselves part of a much bigger story.

The predators can become the prey when the evidence is finally placed on the table.

And this time, we intend to put the documents on that table.

Written by Emmanuel Ogbuanu, Agu Ne Che Mba Ndi Igbo 1 Na Scandinavia.
Founder Truth Over Empire Initiative

The research continues...........

We are starting with Enugu State

A secure region is one who can source at least 90% of its food need’s locally. And that is what we are promoting for the South East!

My own anger is why HE Alhaji Atiku Abubakar should tell HE Adrmola Adeleke the koko, he should have allowed Bulablu rig like he always do and find out swiftly!

The 0ld crook think say na Joe Biden wet he donated for e election against Trump dey there!

Emmabyte:
There is fire behind this smoke and tinubu knows that