This question is for dem learned ones in the house, if any.

The Nigerian constitution does not permit secession and if any referendum will hold, the constitution must first be amended.

Now assuming UN decides to give the secessionist wot day are claiming for, can the UN force the National Assembly to amend the Nigeria constitution so as to make secession legal?

Does the UN have such powers to force or influence our National Assembly?

Yes. Nigeria is a signatory country to the International Court and international law takes precedent over domestic law.

Thus, no need to amend constitution to hold referendum in the SS AND SE for Biafra.

Yes and all they need is over 2m ppl saying they want out.
I seriously believe this pro biafra protest is been fueled by UN/US.

For where? No international law takes precedent over any country's constitution. it contravens the Westphalia treaty establishing the modern state structure thus any rule of the UN is only of persuasive and not of binding authority on Nigeria. On the issue of a referendum to determine a seceding part's claim to right for self determination the truth of the matter is that a lot of political tricks can be brought to bear on the matter depending on the alliance that the seceding part have in the parliament with one or more factions in the house. I stand to be corrected but I don't think u need to amend any constitution. INEC can be used to settle the matter through referendum but like I said with the right political alliances.

There are several circumstances when secession may be regarded as legal:

(1) it shall concern people in territories that are subject to decolonization;

(2) it shall be envisaged by the national legislation of the parent state concerned;

(3) the territory inhabited by a certain people should be occupied or annexed after 1945;

(4) the secessionists shall be “a people”;

(5) their parent state shall flagrantly violate their human rights and

(6) no other effective remedies under national or international law may exist, if any of these conditions are met.[1]

In addition, special attention shall be brought to the paragraph 88 of the Written Statement by the Russia in the Kosovo Advisory Proceedings before the ICJ where it was stated the following: “[T]he Russian Federation is of the view that [international law] may be construed as authorizing secession under certain conditions. However, those conditions should be limited to truly extreme circumstances, such as an outright attack by the parent State, threatening the very existence of the people in question. Otherwise, all efforts should be taken in order to settle the tension between the parent State and the ethnic community concerned within the framework of the existing State.”

Example
Is the Crimean secession legal?
No. None of these circumstances are present in the case of Crimea.
First, Crimea is not subject to decolonisation. Under Article 134 of the Constitution of Ukraine “The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is an integral part of Ukraine and all issues delegated to its authority are resolved within its framework of reference as determined by the Constitution of Ukraine.”
Second, secession is not envisaged by the Constitution of Ukraine as a parent state. Generally, all political systems insist on legality of secession only through constitutional means. For instance, the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec case held that “any attempt to effect the secession of a province from Canada must be undertaken pursuant to the Constitution of Canada”. The Supreme Court of Alaska in the Kohlhaas v Alaska case (2006) found that a referendum on secession would be unconstitutional. The Ukrainian legislation is no exception. Article 73 of the Constitution stipulates that any “alterations to the territory of Ukraine shall be resolved exclusively by the All-Ukrainian referendum”, not by the local one.
Third, the territory of Crimea was not occupied or annexed after 1945.
Fourth, the secessionists (i.e. Russian population of the Crimea) may not be regarded as “a people”. As it follows from the Quebec case “a people” shall be governed as “part of a colonial empire”, be “subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation”, be “denied any meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within the state of which it forms a part”. And in all other circumstances, “peoples are expected to achieve self-determination within the framework of their existing state”.
And finally, there is no evidence that the rights of the Russian population in Crimea have ever been subject to flagrant human rights violations from the government of Ukraine. The OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities found no evidence of violations or threats to the rights of Russian speakers during her visit to Kyiv and Crimea. Thus, all claims that the Russian speaking population of Crimea were facing oppression and violence are, at the very least, groundless.

Source:
http://cjicl.org.uk/2014/04/20/international-law-legality-secession-crimea/

McTobe:
For where? No international law takes precedent over any country's constitution. it contravens the Westphalia treaty establishing the modern state structure thus any rule of the UN is only of persuasive and not of binding authority on Nigeria. On the issue of a referendum to determine a seceding part's claim to right for self determination the truth of the matter is that a lot of political tricks can be brought to bear on the matter depending on the alliance that the seceding part have in the parliament with one or more factions in the house. I stand to be corrected but I don't think u need to amend any constitution. INEC can be used to settle the matter through referendum but like I said with the right political alliances.

Dude we are not talking politics and UN here, we are talking law. Nigeria is a member state of the international court of justice and human rights and when matters fall under the jurisdiction of the international court, it take precedent over domestic court and constitution. The Nigerian constitution recognises international law.

South Sudan did not go into parliamentary politics to break away from Sudan and neither did Ethiopia. This is not the UK. Sadly other regions not included in the break away state have no say in the matter and their alliance nor required.

McTobe:
For where? No international law takes precedent over any country's constitution. it contravens the Westphalia treaty establishing the modern state structure thus any rule of the UN is only of persuasive and not of binding authority on Nigeria. On the issue of a referendum to determine a seceding part's claim to right for self determination the truth of the matter is that a lot of political tricks can be brought to bear on the matter depending on the alliance that the seceding part have in the parliament with one or more factions in the house. I stand to be corrected but I don't think u need to amend any constitution. INEC can be used to settle the matter through referendum but like I said with the right political alliances.

If no international law takes predcedent over a country's constitution, why is Sudan's president Albashir hiding like a rat for years or why was Slobadan Milosovich of Yugoslavia arrested.

The UN was established after the second world war given that once in a while murderous tyrants and sado-masochists like Buhari appear on the political radar, just like Hitler.

Biafra's won't be the first for Nigeria. The southern Cameroons were granted their right of opinion through the 1961 plebscite in a referendum by Nigeria, and was conducted UNDER UN's Supervision and NOT NIGERIA(no magomago)

Wetin concern dem wit our own,,end tym un?

Wetin concern dem wit our own,,end tym un

Calculia:


Dude we are not talking politics and UN here, we are talking law. Nigeria is a member state of the International Court and when matters fall under the jurisdiction of the international court, it take precedent over domestic court and constitution. The Nigerian constitution recognises international law.

quote any section of Nigeria constitution that recognizes international criminal court rule to be binding on Nigeria. u don't need to remind me that we are talking international law because I know before commenting, I also said that the decision of ICC is of persuasive authority on Nigeria and not of binding authority on Nigeria quote me any where. Do u know that Nigeria could choose to disregard the ICJ ruling on bakassi Peninsula? By the way who enforces ICC rulings?

McTobe:
quote any section of Nigeria constitution that recognizes international criminal court rule to be binding on Nigeria. u don't need to remind me that we are talking international law because I know before commenting, I also said that the decision of ICC is of persuasive authority on Nigeria and not of binding authority on Nigeria quote me any where. Do u know that Nigeria could choose to disregard the ICJ ruling on bakassi Peninsula? By the way who enforces ICC rulings?

That is where you get it wrong. It is binding on matters regarding human rights of which the right to self determination comes under.


On recognition of fundamental rights under international law see Chapter iv of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999

[quote author=AyakaDunukofia post=40171446]

If no international law takes predcedent over a country's constitution, why is Sudan's president Albashir hiding like a rat for years or why was Slobadan Milosovich of Yugoslavia arrested. The world body was established after the second world war cos of dirty tyrants and sado-masochists like Buhari.

Biafra's won't be the first for Nigeria. The southern Cameroons were granted their right of opinion through the 1961 plebscite in a referendum by Nigeria, and was conducted UNDER UN's Supervision and NOT NIGERIA(no magomago)[/quote Biafra was not mentioned in the post that was why I avoided it but if we must use it as an example. If ICJ determine that Biafra agitation is valid and should be tested through referendum, they cannot force Nigeria but can only persuade and urge Nigeria to conduct a referendum under the watch of International observers and UN teams. they can even go as far as sending a high delegation to urge !Nigeria to do so but that is where it ends. The question of whether Nigeria will listen or not will be a matter of who and who(countries) that are on Biafra side. where Russia, US and China are on Biafra side Nigeria may blink in the name of trying to obey international convention but where Biafra lack any of these super power alliances Nigeria can as well choose to look the other way. I am still waiting for the section of Nigeria constitution that says that international court of justice rule is binding on Nigeria

AyakaDunukofia:


If no international law takes predcedent over a country's constitution, why is Sudan's president Albashir hiding like a rat for years or why was Slobadan Milosovich of Yugoslavia arrested.

The UN was established after the second world war given that once in a while murderous tyrants and sado-masochists like Buhari appear on the political radar, just like Hitler.

Biafra's won't be the first for Nigeria. The southern Cameroons were granted their right of opinion through the 1961 plebscite in a referendum by Nigeria, and was conducted UNDER UN's Supervision and NOT NIGERIA(no magomago)

Biafra was not mentioned in
the post that was why I avoided it but if we must
use it as an example. If ICJ determine that Biafra
agitation is valid and should be tested through
referendum, they cannot force Nigeria but can
only persuade and urge Nigeria to conduct a
referendum under the watch of International
observers and UN teams. they can even go as far
as sending a high delegation to urge !Nigeria to
do so but that is where it ends. The question of
whether Nigeria will listen or not will be a matter
of who and who(countries) that are on Biafra
side. where Russia, US and China are on Biafra
side Nigeria may blink in the name of trying to
obey international convention but where Biafra
lack any of these super power alliances Nigeria
can as well choose to look the other way. I am
still waiting for the section of Nigeria constitution
that says that international court of justice rule is
binding on Nigeria

McTobe:
quote any section of Nigeria constitution that recognizes international criminal court rule to be binding on Nigeria. u don't need to remind me that we are talking international law because I know before commenting, I also said that the decision of ICC is of persuasive authority on Nigeria and not of binding authority on Nigeria quote me any where. Do u know that Nigeria could choose to disregard the ICJ ruling on bakassi Peninsula? By the way who enforces ICC rulings?

WHY DIDN'T THEY HOLD BACK ON BAKASSI? THEY WOULD BE ECONOMIC CONSEQENCES THAN NIGERIANS WILL NOT STAND, CHECK ZIMBABUE AND IRAN.

no they can not. there are cases when referendum is conducted but the government of the country won't acknowledge it. there's nothing the UN can do. an example is Catalonia in Spain. the referendum conducted shows Catalonia should be a country but Spain has refused to recognise the referendum

Calculia:


That is where you get it wrong. It is binding on matters regarding human rights of which the right to self determination comes under.


On recognition of fundamental rights under international law see Chapter iv of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999

I am very conversant with the chapter and section u are talking about and that section doesn't mention anything about binding authority of international law or rulings. in fact no section of the 1999 constitution have that provision. states obey international laws as a goodwill for being parties to the signing of such laws. Also note that a state can decide not to be part of a formal pact or agreement that it signed earlier. note that the Sudanese president is being chased around is simply because US an d their allies can muscle him around in fact the field of international politics have been likened to be anarchical because of super power politics. Nigeria can decide to warn UN not to even think of sending any delegate into Nigeria for referendum so far as they can muster the political will to stand their ground as much as Biafra can declare their independence tomorrow with Russia SU27 jet fighters and Russia stealths stationed at strategic points to defend Biafra should Nigeria try any military action against Biafra. such is the anarchical nature of international law and politics

If you want Biafra, go to UN headquarters and remain there forever. We do not need any Transistor Republic in Aligbo.

kernel501:


WHY DIDN'T THEY HOLD BACK ON BAKASSI? THEY WOULD BE ECONOMIC CONSEQENCES THAN NIGERIANS WILL NOT STAND, CHECK ZIMBABUE AND IRAN.

there wouldn't have been any economic worever on Nigeria, just that Nigeria leaders are so naive. Which embergo could France the major supporters of Cameroon slam on Nigeria. its just what I call the naivety nature of Nigeria foreign policy and these old tired brains at NIIA that advises them. as far as am concern the concept of Africa as the centerpiece of Nigeria foreign policy is an expired milk

I can't comment on referendum as a process since I'm not an international Lawyer but I can comment on the 'right' to a referendum. I believe that any ethnic group in Nigeria can seek referendum based on the fact that Nigeria is just a mere colonial contruct. The argument for a referendum is that the people who populate Nigeria were never consulted before Lugard unilaterally created Nigeria. This renders the 1914 amalgamation illegitimate and thus, a referendum becomes the only legitimate way for the various ethnicities to define their political borders. A clause in the amalgamation document purpotedly claims that after 100 years, any of the ethnic nationalities that make up Nigeria who are no longer happy with the union can opt out. The fact that Nigeria is an illegal fabrication of the White man is at the very heart of why a referendum should be conducted. Referendum is the legitimate way to reverse the illegal amalgamation of 1914 and to decolonize Nigeria. I remember watching on YouTube an interview Asari Dokubo gave where he claimed that the Ijaw people sent a delegation to the colonial office in London in 1923 to ask the British Government why they included the Ijaw people in Nigeria. Dokubo also claimed that the Egba people of South west Nigeria never became part of Nigeria until that same year of 1923. My late grandfather was born an Igbo man in 1902, he told me before he died that he did not know he had been made a Nigerian until 1920. The fact that most people were made Nigerians without their knowledge also renders Nigeria as an act of fraud thus lending credibility to the notion of a referendum. On the whole, the case for a referendum is very strong and if the Nigerian Government eventually does not agree to a referendum, I believe it will later lead to a second civil war

McTobe:
there wouldn't have been any economic worever on Nigeria, just that Nigeria leaders are so naive. Which embergo could France the major supporters of Cameroon slam on Nigeria. its just what I call the naivety nature of Nigeria foreign policy and these old tired brains at NIIA that advises them. as far as am concern the concept of Africa as the centerpiece of Nigeria foreign policy is an expired milk

THEY CAN FORCE UN MEMBERS TO SHUN NIGERIAN OIL AND ANY COUNTRY STRONG ENOUGH TO WAVE THE SANCTION WILL BID A BARREL BELOW $20 KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT PRO AMERICAN STATES WON'T BUY.
REMEMBER 80% OF OUR REVENUE COMES FROM OIL.

FORCE INTERNATIONAL BANKS AGAINST DOING BUSINESS WITH NIGERIAN BANKS, THAT ALONE WILL BRING OUR ECONOMY TO HER KNEELS.

Alezy:
Yes and all they need is over 2m ppl saying they want out.

I seriously believe this pro biafra protest is been fueled by UN/US.

Was it them that fuelled it in the 60s?

Stop talking about Biafra
It is a dream of fool. Like the former army chief , foolishness is not igbo


I would let Biafra go.. But no food. How do you feed 30 million , on water.


For how long

McTobe:
quote any section of Nigeria constitution that recognizes international criminal court rule to be binding on Nigeria. u don't need to remind me that we are talking international law because I know before commenting, I also said that the decision of ICC is of persuasive authority on Nigeria and not of binding authority on Nigeria quote me any where. Do u know that Nigeria could choose to disregard the ICJ ruling on bakassi Peninsula? By the way who enforces ICC rulings?

No one needs to soldiers to bind any country to international law.
Economic sanctions are enough, and for a consumer economy like Nigeria, it would be brutal.

I will let go of Biafra if they want. But there will be no food.

The north will cut you off of food.

Biafra is a suicide mission with no food.


The east or what they call Biafra own 18 television stations.

It own 18 universities., airport. Ownership in major bank..


Even while it is not official dead. The government still exist. It is just in a different form.

Many government don't own this. In term of business , they will be losers. They are loading more than they will gain in Biafra business wise

no

Calculia:
Yes. Nigeria is a signatory country to the International Court and international law takes precedent over domestic law.

Thus, no need to amend constitution to hold referendum in the SS AND SE for Biafra.

You don't need to wait for amendment as long as REFERENDUM IS NOT EXPLICITLY MENTIONED AS BEIGN ILLEGAL IN THE CONSTITUTION.

The Brits did not amend theirs to allow the scottish referendum.

egift:
If you want Biafra, go to UN headquarters and remain there forever. We do not need any Transistor Republic in Aligbo.

Unfortunately, majority won't leave for minority. You will have to start searching for your lost awusa father in gamboru when Biafra is restored. Buy your ghana-must-go now that it's still cheap. You megabyte-thieving fraud.

ArodeTsolaye:


Unfortunately, majority won't leave for minority. You will have start searching for your lost qwusa father in gamboru when Biafra is restored. Buy your ghana-must-go now that it's still cheap. You megabyte-thieving fraud.

Combo

McTobe:
The question of whether Nigeria will listen or not will be a matter of who and who(countries) that are on Biafra side. where Russia, US and China are on Biafra side Nigeria may blink in the name of trying to obey international convention but where Biafra lack any of these super power alliances Nigeria can as well choose to look the other way. I am still waiting for the section of Nigeria constitution that says that international court of justice rule is binding on Nigeria

I have to agree on the bolded.

For the ICJ at THE HAGUE, their ruling becomes binding on any country that willing go there for any adjudication on a case, usually a trans-national or international case. The Bakassi case adjudication became binding on Nigeria the moment Nigeria agreed AHEAD OF TIME to abide by its ruling.
That is why Cameroun kept persuading Nigeria to go there with them, and Nigeria "mumuishly" went there. The rest is history.

As for the International Criminal Court (ICC), that is binding on all countries that are SIGNATORY to it.
Nigeria is a signatory to ICC, so her leaders are subject to being dragged there for justice on issues of crimes against humanity.
That is why IPOB wear body cameras gathering shooting evidences against unarmed civilians by the Nigeria police and others.
One day "Sai Baba" go hear am.

We will force the UN, Nigeria made it bad for themselves by not including a referendum in the Constitution, as if its by force.

Yes, the UN can.

FREEDOM4BIAFRA:
We will force the UN, Nigeria made it bad for themselves by not including a referendum in the Constitution, as if its by force.

Yes, the UN can.

UN can "force" Nigeria to conduct a referendum if the permanent members agree to that. Any number of things can make them agree... or not.
It is left to the Biafrans to find out what those things are.
Personally I believe that the shortest route to Biafran freedom from Nigeria is for the Biafrans to "convince" the Nigerians that they want out and even if it takes 100 years that they want out. Once the Nigerians get convinced that we hate them enough they will ask us to leave.
Right now they hate us, but we haven't returned the favor yet.
Even foreigners notice that Nigerians hate us, but the problem is our people who carry on as if life can go on under the burden of such hate.
Our region is the most neglected in Nigeria in terms of federal infrastructure.
Things that North and West take for granted (eg airports, roads and bridges) are pies in the skies in our region.
And if we complain, we are killed.
It is only if we return the hate that the writing will become clear on the wall.
Maybe then, they would know that we are humans with dignity too, and maybe let us go ('cos frankly they don't like us).