₦airaland Forum

[size=18pt]US documents support Achebe: Gowon blocked food supplies to Biafra, shot down Red Cross relief aircrafts, sabotaged Biafran farmlands[/size]

Category: POLITICS

Published on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 23:22

Written by Elombah.com



Information released online from the US Department of State archive from January 20, 2001 to January 20, 2009 indicates that during the Nigeria civil war, the government of General Yakubu Gowon offering a food corridor was busy shooting down RED CROSS Aircraft ferrying food to Biafra. On June 5, 1969, an International Committee of

the Red Cross (ICRC) plane was shot down by a Nigerian MIG while en-route to Biafra with relief supplies.

Elombah.com investigators discovered that on July 1, 1969, the Federal Military Government (FMG) kicked out the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and imposed a de facto embargo on relief flights into Biafra. Airlifts into Biafra could operate only in daylight following inspection in Federal territory. Those food and medical relief supplies from Sao Tome were declared illegal and subject to military interdiction by Gowon.

The issue arose as Alhaji Femi Okunnu, alleged that former Biafran leader, General Emeka Ojukwu used starvation to prolong civil war. He was commenting on the allegation by Professor Chinua Achebe of Chief Obafemi Awolowo using starvation against the Igbo during the war.

Okunnu a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, served as the Federal Commissioner for Works and Housing between 1967 and 1974. He was also appointed by General Yakubu Gowon, Nigeria's wartime head of state, as a Special Envoy and Leader of Peace Talks, during the 30-month Nigerian civil war.

He had said in an interview with Tribune that "the other side refused to negotiate seriously. They were only interested in the sovereignty of Biafra. That was the goal of Ojukwu; an independent Biafra and he tried to use starvation to attain that goal."



But available records show that on 30 June 1969, the Nigerian government banned all Red Cross aid to Biafra; two weeks later it allowed medical supplies through the front line, but restricted food supplies. Later in October 1969, Ojukwu appealed to United Nations to mediate a cease-fire. The federal government then called for Biafra's surrender.

By this time food was very short in Biafra and they were having major problems trying to save the starving civilian population. Many countries and church agencies were offering food, but the planes trying to fly it in had to run a gauntlet of fire usually during the night, which made it harder for the pilots to see where they were going. At one time each cargo plane had a fighter with it to try and mislead the troops below. Many flew at tree top level to evade being in the Nigerians line of fire, cutting down their exposure time to just a few seconds.

Commenting on Alhaji Femi Okunnu allegation, a Historian, Obi Nwakamma said: "Okunnu was part of a war cabinet that sanctioned the use of cruel and inhuman methods in the prosecution of war, also known as "war crimes." Years later after the pyrrhic victory, I do not expect him to say anything less in self-justification. But if he were thinking a little more compassionately you would expect that he'd take a step back, re-examine the situation, and acknowledge that the government in which he served at the highest level bears profound responsibilities. It would not bring back those starved to death or bombed to smithereens but it'd salve the conscience of that unfortunate nation a little bit."

In the words of Obi Nwakanma, the effect of the blockade on Biafra was clear, but once the urgency of relief became equally clear for the survival of the civilian population, it became necessary to limit the blockade on food to the civilian population. The abortion of such a relief as a strategy of war constitutes a war crime.

The push to starve the civilian population in order to pressure the Biafra leadership to surrender should be seen for what it was: a targeted, genocidal act. Okunu bears responsibility in part, until it is proven that he dissented from any such initiative. It was not only starvation that was used: the bombing of civilian populations; markets, hospitals, schools with entire school children killed in session, etc are clearly documented. There are rules to war. All is not fair in war. This is the basic point of this argument and the thrust of Achebe's criticism of the federal policy of starvation.

Further archival reports see by Elombah.com show that from 1968 onward, the war fell into a lengthy stalemate, with Nigerian forces unable to make significant advances into the remaining areas of Biafran control. The blockade of surrounded Biafra led to a humanitarian and propaganda disaster when it emerged that there was widespread civilian hunger and starvation in the besieged Igbo areas. An over used tactic of the Nigerian forces had been the sabotage of farmland, and this was now beginning to affect Biafra’s population. Images of starving Biafran children went around the world. The Biafran government claimed that Nigeria was using hunger and genocide to win the war, and sought aid from the outside world.

Many world organised volunteer bodies organised blockade-breaking relief flights into Biafra, carrying food, medicines, and sometimes (it was claimed) weapons. Nigeria also claimed that the Biafran government was hiring foreign mercenaries to extend and lengthen the war.



Another archival document had blamed Ojukwu and Gowon for Biafra Starvation death toll. It said disagreement on shipments between Mr. Gowon and Mr. Ojukwu, were more to blame for the failure of relief materials reaching dying children, women and men desperately in need of food.

Mr. Gowon, the cable said, discontinued air shipments to the Eastern region despite pressure from the United States and the Red Cross, fearing transport airplanes were being used to convey arms to Biafra.

Initial shipments by the Red Cross, had delivered 16 to 20 tons of food a night in a lone DC–4, feeding an estimated 850,000 people in Biafra three meals per week, the document said.

Federal forces sabotaged farmlands

=========================

Sources:

US DEPT OF STATE ARCHIVE:

- 71. Situation Report Prepared by the Nigerian Task Force, Washington, June 6, 1969 [ PDF version ]

On June 5, an International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) plane was shot down by a Nigerian MIG while en-route to Biafra with relief supplies.

Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, Box 742, Country Files, Africa, Nigeria, Vol. I. Confidential.

- 72. Department of State Press Statement, Washington, undated [ PDF version ]

In this statement, which was handed out to the press on June 6, the Department expressed U.S. regret for the attack by the Nigerian Air Force and reiterated the U.S. position of avoiding political or military involvement in the Nigerian civil war. The attached briefing paper, which was read but not distributed, acknowledged that relief and arms night flights were intermingled, and urged expanded relief through daylight flights and a land corridor.

Source: National Archives, RG 59, Records of the Special Coordinator on Relief to Civilian Victims of the Nigerian Civil war, February 1969-June 1970, Lot 70 D 336, Box 517, ICRC, Records. Unclassified. At the top of page one of the statement, Schott wrote, "Clyde - Here is last Friday's statement. The top page was handed out and the second one only read out. SCS."

In a Letter from the Secretary-Treasurer of Joint Church Aid-U.S.A., Inc. (Kinney) to the Special Coordinator on Relief (Ferguson), New York, February 26, 1969, Kinney expressed hope that one of Ferguson's first acts would be to ask the Nigerian Government to cease attacking relief planes making night flights into Uli airstrip. -

Source: National Archives, RG 59, Records of the Special Coordinator on Relief to Civilian Victims of the Nigerian Civil War, February 1969 -June 1970, Lot 70 D 336, Box 517, D-13 Voluntary Agencies Joint Church AID. No classification marking.

========================

In a Telegram 36410 From the Department of State to the Embassy in Nigeria, March 8, 1969, 1954Z, The Department reported on Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Palmer's meeting with Nigerian Information Commissioner Anthony Enahoro. They discussed U.S. humanitarian policy,bombing of civilians and relief aircraft, assistance to Relief Coordinator Clyde Ferguson, protection of Ibos, Soviet influence in Nigeria, and delays in Nigerian visa issuances.

Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1967-69, POL 7 Nigeria. Confidential. Repeated to London, Geneva, Paris, and Cotonou. Drafted by R.J. Wach (AF/W), cleared by Palmer, and approved by Melbourne.

=================================

"On 30 June 1969, the Nigerian government banned all Red Cross aid to Biafra; two weeks later it allowed medical supplies through the front line, but restricted food supplies. Later in October 1969, Ojukwu appealed to United Nations to mediate a cease-fire. The federal government then called for Biafra's surrender.

"By this time food was very short in Biafra and they were having major problems trying to save the starving civilian population. Many countries and church agencies were offering food, but the planes trying to fly it in had to run a gauntlet of fire usually during the night, which made it harder for the pilots to see where they were going. At one time each cargo plane had a fighter with it to try and mislead the troops below. Many flew at tree top level to evade being in the Nigerians line of fire, cutting down their exposure time to just a few seconds."

===============

The Gowon govt offering a food corridor was busy shooting down RED CROSS Aircraft ferrying food to Biafra

===============================

"From 1968 onward, the war fell into a lengthy stalemate, with Nigerian forces unable to make significant advances into the remaining areas of Biafran control. The blockade of surrounded Biafra led to a humanitarian and propaganda disaster when it emerged that there was widespread civilian hunger and starvation in the besieged Igbo areas. An over used tactic of the Nigerian forces had been the sabotage of farmland, and this was now beginning to affect Biafra’s population. Images of starving Biafran children went around the world. The Biafran government claimed that Nigeria was using hunger and genocide to win the war, and sought aid from the outside world.

"Many world organised volunteer bodies organised blockade-breaking relief flights into Biafra, carrying food, medicines, and sometimes (it was claimed) weapons. Nigeria also claimed that the Biafran government was hiring foreign mercenaries to extend and lengthen the war."

Mercenary wars - Biafra conflict 1966

======================

Federal forces sabotaged farmlands

=========================

WHO IS THIS Robert S. Goldstein?

In a Memorandum From the Country Director for West Africa (Melbourne) to the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs (Palmer), Washington, April 18, 1969, The memorandum outlined the lobbying activities in Washington of Biafrans Dr. Pius Okigbo, Dr. Eni Njoku, and Dr. Kenneth Dike. - Source: National Archives, RG 59, Records of the Special Coordinator on Relief to Civilian Victims of the Nigerian Civil War, February 1969 - June 1970, Box 514, Lot 70 D 336, Political. Limited Official Use.

NO MENTION WAS MADE OF ANY Robert S. Goldstein?

==================================

-- 60. Memorandum From the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs (Kissinger) to President Nixon, Washington, April 24, 1969 [ PDF version ]

Kissinger warned the President that the Congressional chorus on Nigeria might be rising again, in particular due to a new organization, "Americans for Biafran Relief," with Senator Kennedy taking the lead. Tabs to attachment are included with Kissinger's January 28 memorandum, Document 25

Source: National Archives, Nixon Presidential Materials, NSC Files, Box 741, Country Files, Africa, Nigeria. Confidential. Sent for information.

-- 61. Telegram 3636 From the Embassy in Nigeria to the Department of State, April 25, 1969, 1518Z [ PDF version ]

The Embassy suggested that "Americans for Biafran Relief" might present an opportunity to put pressure on Lieutenant Colonel Ojukwu, Military Governor of the Eastern Region of Nigeria, to facilitate relief efforts. The Embassy wanted the onus for blocking relief put on Ojukwu.

Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1967-69, POL 27-9, Biafra-Nigeria. Confidential.

-- 80. Memorandum From Roger Morris of the National Security Council Staff to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs (Kissinger), Washington, July 1, 1969 [ PDF version ]

Morris told Kissinger that the Federal Military Government (FMG) had all but kicked out the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and imposed a de facto embargo on relief flights into Biafra. Airlifts into Biafra could operate only in daylight following inspection in Federal territory. Those from Sao Tome were illegal and subject to interdiction. Morris was apprehensive of negative reaction by Senator Kennedy and the Biafra lobby.

www.elombah.com

http://www.elombah.com/index.php/articles-mainmenu/12958-us-documents-support-achebe-gowon-blocked-food-supplies-to-biafra-shot-down-red-cross-relief-aircrafts-sabotaged-biafran-farmlands

Eko Ile: Ode son of disgruntled, zero nobel winning hate filled ashebe the failure...I thought I told you to shut your akpu mouth?

Yawns. Next.

Eko Ile: Ode son of disgruntled, zero nobel winning hate filled ashebe the failure... Who is still crying and moaning over decades old issues that the rest of the wold have gotten over and moved away from?

Is this not the same crying and moaning you losers do on NL everyday? How is this easy on you clowns? By crying and bitching in our hears everyday like some annoying pest because you losers got your arse whooped and your village rebel leader denied you food and dumped you clowns like a plague?


Abeg shut your akpu mouth ....

And you've said absolutely nothing after all that ranting. Yawns. Typical Yoruba. Lack objectivity.

Eko Ile: What's the rest of the book got to do with what he said about Awolowo and Yoruba people in the paragraphs we've read? Are you saying he took those back later in the book by saying he really didn't mean what he said about Awolowo and Yoruba people? In fact, is the rest of the book going to change what he said about Awolowo and Yoruba people?



Another goofy and upside down ibo logic...

I never said i cared about what he said about awolowo, so what? What exactly did he say about Yoruba again? Stop crying. One man is bringing all of you to your knees. You all are only making it worse on yourselves by hightening the polity.

ekt_bear: Provide evidence.

Google it. try google book even.

ekt_bear: Well, Achebe and co seem to have a bigger issue with the SW than the North.

The North (both core north and middle belt) massacred them in large #s, but you will not hear as much criticism of them

You've only seen one quote from the book so how did you come to that conclusion? I guess it seems that way because you leaders,instead of being objective like the northerners and Igbos, came out ranting up and down, left and right, with points.

c.fours:
get over it.
you shouldn't have declared a war in the first place if you weren't ready to accept your loss.
cry me a river. *whine* *whine*

The only thing eastern nigeria declared was independence not war. by the way im not from the eastern region so shut ur mouth. And pls, lets not talk about crying a river because your Yoruba leaders have have been in dipers and sucking their thumbs for the past couple weeks now because of one man. Pathetic.

shymexx: But did Yoruba people take part in the pogroms??

That's between you guys and those who committed the pogroms...

Yes, yorubas in Oyo state region.

[size=18pt]For the first time since after the Nigeria-Biafra War[/size]

BIAFRA DRAGS NIGERIA TO COURT!

Category: Politics

Published on Sunday, 14 October 2012 18:45
Written by Admin




On behalf of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Bilie Human Rights Initiative has filed the case, Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/102/2012 in the Federal High Court of Nigeria in the Owerri Judicial Division against the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Attorney-General of the Federation seeking to enforce the rights of indigenous

people of Biafra to self-determination and independence.

World Press Release:

Gentlemen of the Press, we are here today to let the world know what is happening in Nigeria. The safety of the lives and properties of indigenous people of Biafra living in Nigeria are no longer guaranteed. The Biafrans were forced to surrender their sovereignty and become Nigerian citizens on the promise that their lives and properties would be protected by the Government of Nigeria. Now, it has become clear that the Government of Nigeria is impotent and incompetent to protect the indigenous people of Biafra who were not consumed by the war. In fact, the Nigeria Police and Army Officers have continued to harass, intimidate, arrest, detain and kill Biafran human rights activists who are agitating for the self-determination and independence of Biafra by peaceful means but spare the militant activists from other nationalities agitating for similar outcome. There is clear and demonstrable policy of discrimination, marginalization, oppression and racism against the remnants of the indigenous people of Biafra living in Nigeria which has caused some of them to deny their identity in order to receive favours from the Federal Government of Nigeria. The situation has compelled Bilie Human Rights Initiative to file multiple suits against the Federal Government of Nigeria and its agents on behalf of the indigenous people of Biafra to protect their human and peoples’ rights. At the moment, the two suits Bilie Human Rights Initiative has filed are as follows:

(a) Case number 1 is for the Self-determination and Independence of Biafra

(b) Case number 2 is an order seeking restraint on the part of the Federal Government of Nigeria and her agents from the continued intimidation, harassment and threat to life of the publishers and distributors of Eastern Pilot Newspaper and violation of the publication’s freedom of expression as guaranteed under the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The Case for Self-determination and Independence of Biafra:

On behalf of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Bilie Human Rights Initiative has filed the case, Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/102/2012 in the Federal High Court of Nigeria in the Owerri Judicial Division against the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Attorney-General of the Federation seeking to enforce the rights of indigenous people of Biafra to self-determination and independence. The said suit brought by way of originating summons requires the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Attorney-General of the Federation to appear in court to answer fundamental questions impinging on the rights of Indigenous People of Biafra which to date has remained unanswered and untested in any competent court of law.

LET the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Attorney-General of the Federation within thirty days after service of this summons on them, inclusive of the day of such service, cause an appearance to be entered for them to this summons which is issued upon the application of BILIE HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE representing INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA who are indigenes of the South East geopolitical zone of Nigeria, parts of the South-South geopolitical zone of Nigeria and parts of the Middle Belt zone of Nigeria seeking to enforce their right to self-determination pursuant to Articles 19 - 25 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, and to redress all wrongs occasioned on them by the Defendants in consequence whereof the Claimants pray for the determination of the following questions:

1. Whether the Indigenous People of Biafra who are the remnants that were not consumed in the Nigerian-Biafran war of 1967 – 1970 have the right of self-determination pursuant to Articles 19 – 25 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.

2. Whether the Claimants who identify themselves as Biafrans by indigenous identity are committing any offence by doing so contrary to any provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 or contrary to any provisions of the Criminal Code and whether it is a crime under any national or international law to mention the name of BIAFRA or for the remnants of the Indigenous People of Biafra who were not consumed by the war to maintain their indigenous identity as Biafrans with their native emblems and symbols as they do now even though they are Nigerians by citizenship and nationality laws; and if the answer is in the negative, whether the Defendants are justified to arrest, detain, shoot and or kill the children of the Claimants for identifying themselves as Biafrans by indigenous identity contrary to the rights of indigenous peoples as guaranteed by Articles 19 – 25 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.

3. Whether by the interpretation of Section 2 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 it is a crime for the Claimants and or the people of other ethnic nationalities held together in Nigeria against their will to exercise their right to self-determination by seeking for independence under the law as guaranteed by Articles 19 – 25 Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 and the United Nations Resolution 61/295 of 2007 known as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

4. Whether it is lawful under the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 and under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 for the Defendants to hold the ethnic nationalities in Nigeria together by force against their will who now constitute the six geopolitical regions namely: South East, South South, South West, North Central, North East and North West, in a forced marriage akin to slavery contrary to their human and peoples’ rights of self-determination as there is no provision in the Nigerian law or international law that makes it a crime for a people to seek for freedom by the rule of law.

5. Whether the amalgamation of the peoples of the south and north by the British Government to form one country called Nigeria was with the consent and agreement of the indigenous peoples of the lands; and if the answer is in the negative, whether the Order-in-Council 1910 – 1913 made by the British Government to create Nigeria in 1914 was null and void ab initio for lacking legitimacy as it could not form the basis of the Nigerian Constitution thereby rendering the amalgamation invalid.

6. Whether by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1963 which took effect on 1st October 1963 and remained in force until the midnight of 30th September 1979 the Defendants were right to seize and confiscate the assets, properties, money, and all treasures belonging to the Claimants by promulgating the Abandoned Properties Act of 28th September 1979 while the 1963 Constitution was in force, being more than nine years after the war and after the declaration of “One Nigeria” while regarding the Claimants as Nigerian citizens but depriving them of their properties, money and assets; and if the answer is in the negative, whether the Defendants are still justified to withhold the said money, properties and assets belonging to the Claimants.

7. Whether the Defendants were justified to violate the International Humanitarian Law and the Laws of War known as the Geneva Convention 1949 (to which the Defendants acceded and ratified on 20th June 1961) by bombing the Biafran civilians, killing the Biafran civilians and using starvation to kill the children, women and the elderly of the civilian population of the indigenous people of Biafra in the war of 1967 – 1970 in order to win the war.

8. Whether the Defendants by registering Nigeria as a member of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) in 1986 and licensing an Islamic Sharia Bank in Nigeria under the 1999 Constitution contrary to Section 10 of the Constitution of Nigeria have violated the Constitution and turned Nigeria into an Islamic country; and if the answer is in the affirmative, whether the Claimants have the right to dissociate themselves from the Defendants and refuse to answer the citizens of an Islamic country in the exercise of their right to freedom of worship, freedom of association and self-determination as a people.

AND LET THE DEFENDANTS TAKE NOTICE that the Claimants who are called Biafrans by indigenous identity and Nigerians by nationality have commenced the legal processes leading to their referendum for self-determination and shall at the hearing of this summons pray the Honourable Court for:

(a) An Order declaring that the Claimants have the right to self-determination pursuant to Articles 19 – 25, Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, and are therefore free to exercise their right to self-determination for independence or any other political status of their choice.

(b) An Order declaring that the ethnic nationalities that make up Nigeria are not held as slaves under Section 2(1) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 and therefore have the right of self-determination to decide their political status by the rule of law.

(c) An Order declaring that the Defendants are liable to pay to the Claimants by way of compensation or reparation the present value of all the money, properties and assets of the Claimants seized by the Defendants as a result of the Nigerian-Biafran war of 1967 – 1970 since the properties were not seized in wartime but nine years after the war based on the post-war discriminatory policies and laws made by the Defendants to suppress the Claimants from generation to generation.

(d) An Order directing the Defendants to comply with the provisions of Article 20 (3) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 and consequently give all assistance to the Claimants in the exercise of their right to self-determination for a peaceful conduct of their referendum for independence or for any other political status of their choice.

(e) An Order granting judicial protection to the Claimants, their homes, their offices and their correspondences individually and collectively as they exercise their right to self-determination and an Injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents and privies, from interfering, arresting, molesting, intimidating, disturbing, hindering or harassing the Claimants or doing any act or omitting to do any act aimed at frustrating the Claimants’ exercise of their right to self-determination which they have commenced with a referendum.

(f) An Order compelling the Defendants to release from its prisons and detention centres all indigenous people of Biafra who are agitating as pro-Biafra Movements for Independence of Biafra by peaceful means and to drop all charges of treason or treasonable felonies made against them and to release all their properties seized by the Defendants.

(g) An Order affirming the Memorandum of Ohanaeze Ndigbo dated 28th June 2012 submitted to the National Assembly for the restructuring of Nigeria into six autonomous self-governing regions, namely: South East, South West, South South, North East, North West and North Central, as a manifestation of the Will of the People in the exercise of their right to self-determination and directing the Defendants to present an Executive Bill to the National Assembly for a law granting autonomy and self-governing status to the six geopolitical regions in Nigeria; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, in the role of the Judiciary as the last hope of the common man, an Order directing the Defendants to present an Executive Bill to the National Assembly for a law dissolving Nigeria in peace along the compatible ethnic groups instead of allowing the country to break up in bloodshed.

(h) An Order declaring that the Defendants by registering Nigeria as a member of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) have turned Nigeria into an Islamic country contrary to Section 10 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 and therefore the Claimants being Christians have the right to dissociate themselves from the Defendants and refuse to be called the citizens of an Islamic country.

The facts of the case and exhibits relied on are contained in a 44-Paragraph Affidavit filed with the suit. Bilie Human Rights Initiative is by this legal action accelerating efforts to bring legal clarity to the issue of arbitrary arrests of indigenous people of Biafra. We believe that what Biafra lost after the war was its sovereignty and not its people since we were not annihilated by Nigeria as Rome annihilated Carthage.

About 99% of the population of the indigenous people of Biafra are Christians holding tenaciously to their Christian faith, believing in freedom of worship, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of expression, and separating the State from Religion. We believe in democracy as the only system of government that guarantees our fundamental human rights. Unfortunately, the Moslems from the North who were merged with us in the country called Nigeria do not believe in democracy and do not separate their Religion from the State. They do not believe in freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of expression. In a conflict between the law of the State and the law of Islam, the Moslems insist that the law of Islam must prevail while we insist that the law of the State must prevail. They regard democracy as a false religion as shown by the fliers and posters they are spreading in Britain, America, Nigeria and other countries of the world where democracy is practised. This shows fundamental irreconcilable differences in the ideologies of the two peoples. All the efforts of their ethnic militia called Boko Haram are aimed at Islamizing the whole country and forcing us to become Moslems! The Biafrans saw this Islamic virus ahead of time and sought to free themselves in 1967-1970 but the odds were too much against them since Great Britain and other developed countries of the west could not see what the Biafrans saw. In the Ahiara Declaration, General Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu revealed that the Biafran Struggle was not only a political or military struggle but also a struggle for religious freedom. In his words, “The Biafran struggle is, on another plane, a resistance to the Arab-Muslim expansionism which has menaced and ravaged the African continent for twelve centuries.

Our Biafran ancestors remained immune from the Islamic contagion. From the middle years of the last century Christianity was established in our land. In this way we came to be a predominantly Christian people. We came to stand out as a non-Muslim island in a raging Islamic sea. Throughout the period of the ill-fated Nigerian experiment, the Muslims hoped to infiltrate Biafra by peaceful means and quiet propaganda, but failed. Therefore, to militant Islam, Biafra is a stumbling block to their plan for controlling the whole continent.

Nigeria obtained only a military victory over Biafra but not spiritual conquest. Nigerians and their Governments treat us like a defeated people though mouthing “No Victor No Vanquished” in hypocrisy. Any person who identifies himself as an Ibo or Biafran receives persecution, hatred and rejection from Nigerians. Fair-minded Nigerians have acknowledged that the Government of Nigeria is designed to marginalize and persecute us. Alhaji Salisu Lamido Salisu, in his Conference Lecture at Arewa House in 1999, said concerning us as follows: “They have been defeated in war, rendered paupers by monetary policy fiat, their properties declared abandoned and confiscated, kept out of strategic public sector appointments and deprived of public services. The rest of the country forced them to remain in Nigeria and has continued to deny them equity. The Northern Bourgeoisie and the Yoruba Bourgeoisie have conspired to keep the Igbo out of the scheme of things. In the recent transition when the Igbo solidly supported the PDP in the hope of an Ekwueme presidency, the North and South-West treated this as a Biafra agenda. Every rule set for the primaries, every gentleman’s agreement was set aside to ensure that Obasanjo, not Ekwueme emerged as the candidate… Now, with this government, the marginalization of the Igbo is more complete than ever before. The Igbos have taken all these quietly because, they reason, they brought it upon themselves. But the nation is sitting on a time-bomb”.

Yes, indeed, Nigeria is sitting on a time-bomb. Fair-minded northerners and westerners have acknowledged that the Government of Nigeria has been quite unfair to us. The maltreatments and persecutions have caused some of our people to deny their native identity in order to survive in Nigeria. Some of our people in the South-South region have changed their names to sound foreign in order to escape the persecution while some towns and villages have been forcefully assimilated into neighbouring tribes. Our spirits are still alive despite all the persecutions we suffer in Nigeria. This is why we are insisting on regaining our freedom because we still believe in our indigenous identity as Biafrans.

We want the Court to determine whether it is an offence for the remnants of the ancestors of Biafraland who were not consumed by the war to maintain their indigenous identity as a people and exercise their right to self-determination. We want the Court to determine whether it is an offence to mention the name of BIAFRA and believe in Biafra and preach Biafranism as a gospel of national liberation. We are fast-tracking legal efforts to compel the Nigerian Government to stop arresting anybody answering to or wearing Biafran emblem, insignia or any material that reflects their belief in Biafra. We believe that this a test case for the development of human rights law, not only for the benefit of the Nigerian legal system but also for the benefit of other countries of the world who are bound by the United Nations Charter on Human Rights.

Concerning our people who have denied their ancestral identity as Biafrans and Ibos in order to survive in Nigeria, we do not hold the denial against them as we see it as a self-preservation technique which is often caused by fear and lack of boldness. We remember the biblical example of the Apostle Peter who denied his Lord and Master Jesus Christ when his life was in danger. But as Peter repented and wept for denying his identity as a disciple of Christ, we advise our brethren who have denied their Igbo and Biafran identity to repent and return to their ancestral roots because our deliverance has come.

Gentlemen of the Press, we cannot comment on the merits of the case now since it is before the court but we enjoin you to follow the proceedings and give it a wide publicity in the interest of the public for the advancement of human rights law. The Court has fixed the case for 30th October 2012 when the parties will appear in Court for the first time.

Thank you, Gentlemen of the Press, for your patience and rapt attention to this briefing.

Signed:

Elder Eddy Anyanwu

Press Secretary

Bilie Human Rights Initiative

http://elombah.com/index.php/write-for-us/12927-for-the-first-time-since-after-the-nigeria-biafra-war-biafra-drags-nigeria-to-court

The book comes out today. I've pre-ordered it. Can't wait

[size=18pt]US, UK, France oppose review of ICJ judgement on Bakassi[/size]

Posted by: Yusuf Alli Posted date: October 07, 2012



• Send solidarity messages to Cameroun

• Pro-review groups yet to submit fresh documents



Three world powers- the United States of America (USA), United Kingdom (UK) and France are in solidarity with Cameroun on the Bakasi issue amidst pressure on the Federal Government by some interest groups to appeal against the ceding of the Bakasi Peninsula to Yaounde.

The three countries, according to diplomatic sources, have assured Cameroun of their continued support on the decision of the International Court of Justice (IJC) on the peninsula and their commitment to the Green Tree Agreement.

The US, UK and France ambassadors in Cameroun, it was gathered, met that country’s Minister of External Affairs at the weekend to express their strong opposition to any attempt by Nigeria to initiate a review of the ICJ ruling.

The Western nations are all members of the influential Security Council of the United Nations.

One source said: “We have got diplomatic report of the closed-door session between the ambassadors of the three countries and the Minister of External Affairs of Cameroun.

“We are aware that they insisted on the Green Tree Agreement at the meeting. This has justified our decision to weigh all options on the latest demand for a review of the judgment.

“Beyond sentiments, we are looking at the diplomatic implications especially the likelihood of sanctions on Nigeria by the UN Security Council if we seek a review of the judgment.

“We have a challenge of not being trusted as a nation that respects agreements or treaties. These are all the sides to the matter.”

There were indications last night that the government has finally foreclosed filing an application for a review of the IJC ruling because there are no fresh facts or documents to support such.

Nigeria has up till October 10 to file an appeal based on fresh facts.

Although President Goodluck Jonathan had said government would not appeal the decision of the IJC, scores of groups and individuals have been piling pressure on government to reconsider its position.

The President, apparently bowing to the pressure, last Wednesday constituted an eight man committee to strategise on the possibility of an appeal by Nigeria.

But none of the pro-appeal groups or individuals including the Cross River State government has so far volunteered fresh information or document to the office of the Attorney General of the Federation/Justice Minister as directed by the committee.

At a session on Thursday night at the residence of the Senate Leader, Mr. Victor Ndoma-Egba (SAN), the Federal Government committee mandated Cross River State and others canvassing for review to make new facts or documents available to it.

Members of the committee are the AGF, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Chief Anyim Pius Anyim, the DG of the National Boundary Commission, Senator Ndoma-Egba, a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, two members of the House (Ahmed Ali and Nnenna Ukeje) and another Senator.

Sources close to the meeting said: “Contrary to reports, the meeting was held at Ndoma-Egba’s residence and not at the Office of the Attorney-General as being insinuated. Only the representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was absent at the session.

“When we asked for documents to support new argument for a review of the ICJ judgment, the counsel hired by the Cross River State Government, Mrs. Nella Andem-Rabana (SAN) and the AGF of the state came to make verbal submissions.

“Mrs. Andem-Rabana even told the committee that the review is being sought based on four factors. But she could only discuss three factors with her argument based mainly on the Anglo-German Treaty Agreement of 1913. It was the same Treaty she had canvassed as a member of the Federal Government Team at ICJ in The Hague in 2002.

“When asked if the ceding of Bakassi was not caused by negligence, they had nothing to say.

“We asked them to get all relevant documents and submit these particulars for evaluation by the AGF in line with Article 61 of the ICJ statute.

“We have been waiting all day for new pleadings and documents without anything from pro-review side.”

Asked what would become of the agitation, the source said: “It is apparent that the Federal Government will not seek a review of the ICJ judgment because we formally handed over the territory in 2008.

“It is laughable that nine years, 11 months and 26 days after the ICJ judgment, we are seeking a review. And those agitating for it have not been able to come up with documents to meet the conditions stated in Article 61 of the ICJ statute.

“What we have is a situation where they are running helter-skelter at the last minute looking for documents.

“We have also mandated the aggrieved state and groups to come up with a compilation of alleged violations of human rights of Nigerians resident in Bakassi Peninsula.

“If these violations are established by the committee, we can forward the list to the UN Committee on Human Rights to consider. Yet, they have not given the committee any example.

“Most members of the committee felt disappointed that there have been noise all over without documents to back up the agitation. We cannot make ourselves a laughing stock before the international community.”

Article 61 says: “An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.

“The proceedings for revision shall be opened by a judgment of the Court expressly recording the existence of the new fact, recognizing that it has such a character as to lay the case open to revision, and declaring the application admissible on this ground.

“The Court may require previous compliance with the terms of the judgment before it admits proceedings in revision. The application for revision must be made within six months of the discovery of the new fact.

“No application for revision may be made after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgment.”

Meanwhile, the Federal Government was shocked that barely 72 hours after inaugurating the eight-man committee some highly-placed people have personalized the Bakassi issue by sponsoring attacks on the AGF, who is the chairman of the committee.

A source said: “The President made the AGF the chairman of the committee because the matter involved is directly under his portfolio.

“Government is surprised to read about personal attacks on the AGF on a matter being looked into with transparency. Members of the National Assembly are in the committee and the AGF has not imposed his views on any person or group so far.

“We hope that those behind these attacks will allow the committee to do its work without distraction.”

http://thenationonlineng.net/new/news/us-uk-france-oppose-review-of-icj-judgement-on-bakassi/[b]US, UK, France oppose review of ICJ judgement on Bakassi

T9ksy: Oh well, good luck with your hopeless quest and we yorubas must ensure that this shameful attempt by our host to malign our

great sage does not go, unpunished. All modaphocking ingrates still loitering around in our region should be rounded up and dumped in their

erosion-ravaged, kidnapper's paradise.

Geez! It surely su.c.k.s to be ibos.

Make sure you are the first one to try do the dumping. Remember what happened to your OPC when they came our way

It turns out that the 4 guys weren't even robbers. Those students must set that community on fire and reduce it to nothing.

Chinua Achebe, we praise his good works. Spot on.

I would call a lot of you here ignorant but I'm just going to assume that you didn't know that Abacha is the one who approved the creation of Bayelsa State. Igbos and non-Igbo Niger Deltans here should not insult the guy Abacha. He was not our enemy. He was the enemy to the yorubas largely because he dealt with them because of their constant media lies.

tpia@:
hey, dont derail the thread?

I'll only stop wen ur mine boo

tpia@:
98% of OAU students do not know who he is, so people should plz not bring their personal matters to disturb the campus.

the school has its hands full enough, with the high level of infiltration by fifth columnists who are there to cause future mayhem.

what program was he there for, which group invited him, and which media is reporting all this?



was anyone informed he was coming?

Thanks boo, I love you.

I laugh how a yoruba can open his mouth about someone killing their parents or any other person in their family for money. We all know for any Igbo man/woman that does that there is 50 yorubas doing it as well. Dirty people still trapped in the juju ages. People who cant even stick to one religion,lol. The should create an Islamic Church of Juju just for the yoruba.

And how do they know that?

Flameboy26: I hardly see the mofo online dis days, is he dead? I nid answers pls

There was a vacuum in jonathan's balls. Beaf got sucked in. He was to close. He was warned repeatedly to hop away from his balls but refused.

Nice. At least they have guts unlike the SE state governments.Oops!

El-Rufai to Sanusi = ass leach.

Jonathan's media crew at it again with their lies. He better start reteaching himself how to fish because he's going to need it after the next election.

They've planned the disintegration well. Labeling boko haram a terrorist group now isnt in their plan. we all know who boko haram really is.

I don't know why my Igbo brothers continue aruing witn these yuroba boys. Never argue with a woman.

OYINBOGOJU: Igbo my foot

Selfish greedy people always looking for personal interest elevating curruption at its best.

Mr. Orji can you list some of your achievement when you were Governor for good 8 years while getting fat allocation from FG?

Tufiakwa

This would make sense had it not come from a yoruba. The way your people are in love with the theft of money still amazes me.

Too much time on some people's hand. I dont know how one comes out and calls kalabari, okrika, opobo, bonny, andonai, as Ijaw but at the same time calls ikwere,etch, Ogba as seperate from Igbo. beats my mind. funny.

killayut: Yenagoa, Mbiama,,Okordia, Okarki , Joinkrama, Oruma, Biseni and even to parts of Ogbia are all Engenni. They are all IJAWS.

Wow! Dude, after this comment, please never open your mouth about Ijaw again because obviously you know nothing ouside of your watered down Ijaw group kalabari