₦airaland Forum

Misterone:
Maybe we should ask the yeye AI if Bin Laden was responsible for 911 since he did not commit the crime himself!

Question 11: If Nnamdi Kanu is not responsible for crimes of IPOB then why was Osama Bin Laden responsible for 911

Chatgpt: Great question — and the difference between Kanu/IPOB and Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda is huge in law, structure, evidence, and command hierarchy.
Let me break it down clearly.


---

✅ 1. Al-Qaeda was a tightly organised military-style organisation

Al-Qaeda under Bin Laden had:

A defined hierarchy

A military council

Training camps

Operational commanders

Cell leaders

Funding pipelines

Written fatwas and orders


It functioned like a covert army.

So if an operation happened, it was almost always:

✔️ planned
✔️ approved
✔️ funded
✔️ and coordinated

by the central leadership.


---

✅ 2. Bin Laden personally ordered 9/11

This is the key difference.

The 9/11 Commission and intelligence agencies proved:

Bin Laden conceptualized the attack

He approved the hijacking plan

He selected and assigned the hijackers

He approved funding

He communicated through Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

He received progress updates

He recorded recruiting videos for the attackers


So his responsibility was direct, intentional, and documented.

This is why he was held responsible.


---

❌ 3. IPOB is NOT structured like al-Qaeda

IPOB is:

Decentralised

Politically oriented

Mostly media/radio driven

With ESN being a loose vigilante-style force

A mix of legitimate members, opportunistic criminals, and splinter groups


There is no evidence IPOB had:

a military council

organised terrorist cells

centralised command

structured planning of attacks

documented orders linking Kanu to specific killings


The Nigerian government itself has repeatedly admitted fragmented groups are committing crimes “in the name of IPOB.”


---

❗ 4. Terrorist responsibility requires COMMAND + CONTROL

International law requires BOTH of these:

A. Effective Command

The leader must have real control over the people who acted.

B. Intent + Knowledge

The leader must have ordered, endorsed, or knowingly allowed the attacks.

Bin Laden → yes for both.
Kanu → not proven in court.


---

🔥 5. A group being “designated terrorist” is not enough

If you apply your logic literally:

Every member of IPOB

Every donor

Every listener of Radio Biafra


…would be guilty of terrorism automatically.
That is not how any legal system works.

A group can be unlawful or terrorist, but liability for violent acts still requires evidence of specific connection.


---

🔍 6. Example: Boko Haram vs random “bandits”

Shekau was responsible for Boko Haram terrorism because:

He commanded

He ordered

He controlled funding and fighters


But if random bandits claim “We are Boko Haram,” Shekau is not legally responsible unless they are proven to be under his control.

Same principle applies to Kanu/IPOB.


---

🧠 7. So the difference is simple:

Question Bin Laden Nnamdi Kanu

Did he found the group? Yes Yes
Did he command attacks? Yes Not proven
Did he plan or approve specific killings? Yes (9/11) Not proven
Was the organisation structured like an army? Yes No
Was the link between leader and operations direct? Yes No evidence
Did he admit responsibility? Yes, openly No admission



---

✔️ Conclusion

Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 because he ordered and controlled it.
Nnamdi Kanu cannot be automatically responsible for every IPOB-linked crime because no evidence shows he planned, ordered, or controlled them.

If Nigeria had evidence Kanu did what Bin Laden did, the prosecution would have presented:

communication links

funding trails

operational directives

chain-of-command proof


…but they didn’t.
That’s why the legal situation is not equivalent.


---

If you want, I can explain how Nigerian law defines terrorist command responsibility, or compare IPOB vs Boko Haram vs Niger Delta militants to show how courts treat leaders differently.

Question 10: These were some of the charges used in prosecution

Count 6 - Made broadcast on 20/8/2020, urging students of Physics, Chemistry and Chemical engineering to make improvised explosives, bombs, molotov cocktails and hurl at security operatives. Contrary to Section 12f of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013, he said "attack anybody with Police or Army uniforms in Aba, in Lagos. Destroy them before they destroy you"
The defendant also invited the public to burn and bomb the British High Commission and the US Embassy which is against International Laws. Does the burning and bombing of foreign embassy relate with the agitation for self-determination. found guilty on Count 6.

Count 7 - Importing a radio transmitter into Nigeria, in a concealed container with used household items, so as to be declared as used household items. Contrary to Section 47(2) of the Customs and Excuse Duties Act 2004

It seems fair

Chatgpt: Let’s examine these two specific counts strictly as a judge would, not emotionally, not politically — only by asking:

1. Are the charges proven?


2. Do the charges legally justify conviction?


3. Do they justify heavy sentencing?



You listed Count 6 and Count 7.
Let’s take them one by one.


---

✅ COUNT 6 — INCITEMENT TO USE EXPLOSIVES / ATTACK SECURITY OPERATIVES / ATTACK FOREIGN EMBASSIES

What the prosecution alleged:
That Kanu said:

physics/chemistry students should make bombs, petrol bombs, IEDs

throw them at security operatives

“attack anybody with Police or Army uniform”

“destroy them before they destroy you”

burn/bomb the British High Commission

burn/bomb the US Embassy


LEGAL ANALYSIS

✔️ If proven, this count alone is enough for conviction

Section 12(f) of the Terrorism Prevention Amendment Act 2013 makes it terrorism to:

encourage, incite, or persuade others to commit terrorist acts

including bombing, attacking government institutions, or killing security personnel

whether or not they actually carry out the act

and whether or not the leader acted directly


Under Nigerian law, incitement to commit bombing is itself terrorism.

❗ The key question:

Were these exact words proven in court with authenticated recordings, transcripts, and proper verification?

If yes → conviction is justified.
If no → conviction is shaky.

Here is what matters in law:

Were the recordings authenticated by forensic audio experts?

Did the defence challenge the authenticity?

Was the chain of custody of the recordings clear?

Did DSS provide the raw files or only transcriptions?


If those requirements were properly met, then:

👉 YES — Count 6 is a fair conviction under Nigerian law.

It resembles the RTLM Rwanda case because it involves specific instructions to manufacture weapons and attack institutions.


---

✅ COUNT 7 — IMPORTING A RADIO TRANSMITTER IN A CONCEALED MANNER

This is a customs offense, not terrorism.

Section 47(2) of the Customs & Excise Act punishes:

intentionally concealing imported items

making false declarations

avoiding customs detection


This is not a violent crime, but it is a clear criminal offense.

✔️ If evidence showed:

he imported a transmitter

hid it inside used household goods

failed to declare it properly


…then Count 7 is also a legally sound conviction.


---

⭐ SO DOES THIS MAKE THE CONVICTION FAIR?

For these two counts ALONE — Yes. These charges, if proven correctly, justify conviction.

Especially Count 6 — that one is legally strong if the evidence was properly authenticated.

However:

These counts do not automatically justify the maximum sentence (life imprisonment).

These counts do not prove he commanded specific killings.

These counts do not resolve the issue of illegal rendition, which affects jurisdiction.

These counts do not justify blaming him for every act committed by IPOB members.

These counts do not prove he obtained or used weapons.


But as stand-alone charges, Count 6 and 7 are among the strongest and most justifiable charges the prosecution brought.


---

⭐ FINAL ASSESSMENT

If I were a judge and these two were fully proven with proper evidence:

YES — I would convict him on Count 6 and Count 7.

BUT…

I would give a measured sentence, not life imprisonment:

For Count 6: substantial prison term (e.g., 5–10 years)

For Count 7: smaller term or fine

Terms could run concurrently


Because the nature of the incitement is serious, but the prosecution still did not prove:

direct killings

coordinated terrorist structure

weapons procurement

operational command


So yes, the charges seem fair, but the sentencing should match the evidence, not be inflated politically.


---

If you want, I can give you:

a sample sentencing structure a neutral judge would issue

or compare his case to other Nigerian terrorism cases for consistency.

[quote author=LottiOk post=137581469][/quote]Question 9: But radio broadcasts can be classified as an act of terrorism, the rwandan genocide trial is an example

Chatgpt: You're absolutely right that radio broadcasts can constitute terrorism, and the Rwandan genocide trial (ICTR – International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda) is the strongest historical example.

But the comparison must be done carefully, because the legal standards in Rwanda and Nigeria are VERY different.

Let’s break it down clearly.


---

✅ 1. Yes — broadcasts can be terrorism (Rwanda proved it)

In Rwanda, the judges convicted the RTLM radio executives because their broadcasts:

identified specific ethnic groups ("kill the Tutsis"

named specific locations (“go to this hill now”)

directly instructed killers

timed broadcasts to coordinate attacks

caused immediate, measurable killings that were linked to the broadcasts


This is called:

Direct and Public Incitement to Commit Genocide

…which is a specific, internationally recognized crime.


---

❗ BUT — here is the key difference:

Nigeria does not have a genocide incitement law

Nigeria’s terrorism law requires one of the following to be proven:

1. Direct command of a terrorist act


2. Financing or supplying weapons


3. Organizing or coordinating violent cells


4. Causing specific deaths by clear instruction


5. Material support (weapons, logistics, planning)



In Rwanda, the broadcasts were the actual weapon used to coordinate mass killing.

In Nigeria, Kanu’s broadcasts were:

inflammatory

provocative

dangerous

irresponsible
But the prosecution still had to prove a clear chain of command from his words → specific killings.



---

🧠 2. Legal comparison: Rwanda vs. Kanu

Rwanda (RTLM radio)

Specific named targets

Direct instructions to kill

Broadcasts coordinated real-time violence

Killings happened within MINUTES of broadcasts

Evidence showed a functioning chain between radio speech and militia action


Kanu case

Rhetoric encouraging violence (serious)

But not naming specific individuals or locations in real time

No clear evidence that he planned or coordinated specific attacks

No evidence that he supplied weapons

No militia structure proven under his direct command

Some killings happened months after broadcasts

The chain of command is indirect


The difference is precision and directness.

Nigeria needs direct causation to give the equivalent of a terrorism conviction.

Rwanda had direct, immediate, documented causation.


---

✔️ 3. So your point is valid — but not conclusive

Your argument is absolutely logical:

> “If words cause people to kill, shouldn’t that be terrorism?”



Yes — if proven under the legal definition.

But in court, the burden of proof is higher:

You must show the words directly caused the act, not just inspired it.

This is the gap in the prosecution’s case.


---

💡 4. What would make Kanu’s broadcasts legally similar to Rwanda?

If prosecutors had shown:

“On June 5, Kanu broadcast X”

“At 4pm, his followers attacked Y town”

“The attackers quoted his exact message”

“He gave specific instructions”

“Here is the recording, here are the attackers confirming the order”


Then yes — a terrorism conviction like Rwanda becomes justified.

But the Nigerian prosecution did not establish this level of linkage.


---

⭐ Final Answer

Radio broadcasts can be terrorism — Rwanda is proof.

But Kanu’s broadcasts did not meet the strict legal standard that made the Rwandan broadcasters guilty of genocide incitement.

So while his broadcasts were dangerous, provocative, and morally irresponsible, the legal threshold for a terrorism conviction based on speech alone was not clearly met under Nigerian law.


---

If you want, I can explain:

How international law defines “incitement to terrorism”

What evidence the prosecution should have brought

Or how Rwanda’s precedent could apply in future Nigerian cases.

Katell:
ChapGPT or any other AI can confidently say the wrong thing in convincing manner. Ensure you have some knowledge of what you want the machines to dig out so that when it returns too-good-to-be-true reply, you can query it.

For instance, I attached my chat with ChapGPT yesterday about using Google Antigravity to code. It replied me that it is not possible. I queried it to recheck and it returned that it is actually possible. If I had not read the update somewhere else that developers can now use Google Antigravity as an Editor, ChatGPT would have whitewashed me.

AI is a knowledge support system, not the real knowledge.

As someone who uses Chatgpt i can testify that sometimes it can be inefficient, i know it gave me inaccurate answers on some occasions and i had to do my own specific research to prove it wrong, the key word is specific, i don't think most people online really have much information about Nnamdi Kanu's trial aside from what Chatgpt just analyzed. It even mentioned that the trial was too secretive, we only saw Nnamdi Kanu outbursts.

So if Chatgpt was inaccurate can you blame it?

motymop:
Hi

Chatgpt isn't Nigerian law.

You left the part where the group he created killed people because of his rhetoric

As a matter of fact i did not leave out that part.

muyico:
Staged not real, bring proves with screenshot??

If you have the app you can ask too

Lets compare responses

Lanretoye:
Na wetin chatgpt Dey tell una make kanu collect life sentence

You don't know law

motymop:
You only typed what you want chatgpt to answer.

Why didn't you type that he asked for funding to buy arms. And if it is lawful for a Nigerian citizen to ask for funding for arms.

You also didn't ask chatgpt, if calling for the killing of security operatives is legal

Using terrestrial signals to call on unknown gun men to disrupt the peace.

After you have asked chatgpt these questions, then ask it if the law was right to sentence him to life imprisonment

Question 5: But didnt he call for security operatives to be killed

Chatgpt: Good question. Yes — there is evidence (from the prosecution in his trial) that Kanu made broadcasts calling on his followers to kill security operatives:

In court, a DSS witness said Kanu “ordered his followers to … kill Nigeria security officers.”

The court held that his broadcasts “encouraged … killing of Nigeria security officers.”

According to the court, more than 170 security personnel died after his broadcasts.



---

But — calling for killing is not the same as personally carrying out or ordering detailed military operations, legally speaking:

A judge has to assess whether he personally planned or commanded each killing, not just made inflammatory speeches.

The strength of his sentencing depends on the legal proof: Did he give concrete orders? Did he facilitate weapons? Is there a direct chain of command?



---

So, yes — he did make calls for violence against security operatives, and that was part of what the court used to convict him for “incitement.” But to justify a very heavy sentence, the court still needs solid, proven evidence of his responsibility for specific violent acts.

Question 6: But didnt he also ask for funding to purchase weapons?

Chatgpt: Yes — there is some evidence presented in court that Kanu asked for funding to buy weapons.

However — there are also serious doubts and contradictions:

A DSS witness said no “terrorism weapons” were found on him when he was arrested.

The court rejected some of the government’s evidence on legal-ground issues.



---

My assessment:

Yes, his rhetoric included solicitation for weapons.

But the actual proof of him having or using weapons is weak (at least according to court testimony).

Legally, soliciting funds is different from actually purchasing, storing, or using weapons — and that distinction matters for sentencing.


If I were judging, I would treat the calls for funding as a serious red flag, but not automatically assume he successfully obtained or used arms — unless the prosecution proved that in court.

Question 7: But were there not witnesses in court?

Chatgpt: Yes — there were witnesses in court. For example:

A DSS operative (PW-4) testified that Kanu, in his broadcasts, “directed his followers … to deal decisively with … security agents.”

That same witness said between 170 and 200 security operatives died in the South East allegedly because of his orders.

Another DSS witness (PW-5) claimed 233 security personnel were killed during the #EndSARS protests, linking it to Kanu’s incitement.

The DSS also said they recovered a radio transmitter that they allege was smuggled into Nigeria by Kanu.



---

However — having witnesses is not the same as having irrefutable proof:

On cross-examination, some witnesses admitted they did not directly investigate Kanu himself.

The DSS admitted no weapons were found when he was arrested, according to at least one testimony.

The witness who testified about the radio transmitter also said the DSS did not document how it got into the country.



---

Conclusion:
Yes, there were witnesses who made serious allegations against him — but not all of their claims are uncontested, and some parts of the prosecution’s case (especially around weapons) are disputed or lack clear documentation.

Question 8: But if he called for the deaths of security operatives, and solicited for weapons, and later on security operatives were killed in his name, isnt that serious grounds

Chatgpt: Yes — those are serious grounds, but they are not automatically enough for a lawful conviction or sentencing.
Let me break it down clearly, the way a real judge would think:


---

✅ 1. Calling for killings = serious grounds, but NOT automatically guilt for actual killings

Incitement to violence is a crime.
But legally, it is different from:

murder

terrorism

directing armed groups

commanding specific attacks


A judge must ask:

> Did his words directly cause specific killings — and can this be proven beyond reasonable doubt?



If the answer is not proven, then you cannot give the maximum punishment even if the rhetoric was dangerous.


---

✅ 2. Soliciting funds for weapons = serious grounds, BUT…

Legally, the prosecution must show:

money was actually sent

weapons were actually bought

weapons were used

there is a chain connecting Kanu → weapons → killings


In court, DSS witnesses admitted they did not find weapons on him, and they could not fully establish the chain.

So the court has partial evidence (words) but not complete evidence (actions).

Courts cannot fill in missing evidence with assumption.


---

✅ 3. “People were killed in his name” vs. “He commanded the killings”

This is the core issue.

People killing “in your name” does not mean you legally ordered them.

Example:

If a pastor says “go and fight your oppressors”, and some followers go too far and kill someone, the pastor is morally responsible — but not automatically criminally responsible unless:

he gave clear, specific, intentional orders

to commit that exact act

and it can be proven


Courts require a direct chain, not emotional connection.


---

✅ 4. Why judges are careful in such cases

Because if judges start convicting people based on:

what others did “in their name”

or based on speeches alone

or based on political pressure


…then anyone who makes a provocative political statement could be jailed for life.

That would be extremely dangerous for human rights.


---

✅ 5. So your question is valid: Are these serious grounds?

✔️ YES

They are very serious grounds for investigation and possible prosecution.

❌ NOT AUTOMATICALLY

grounds for a terrorism or murder conviction without clear, admissible, direct proof.


---

⭐ What this means in plain English

Kanu’s rhetoric was dangerous.
His speeches contributed to an environment of violence.
But dangerous speeches are not enough for a life sentence unless directly linked to specific crimes.

A judge must sentence based on proven actions, not inferred responsibility.


---

If you want, I can also explain the difference between political responsibility and legal responsibility, which is what confuses many people in his case.

Question 1: Was Nnamdi Kanu sentence fair? Give a straight yes or no answer

Chatgpt: No.

Question 2: Care to explain why

Chatgpt: Here is the reasoning, stated clearly and without political bias:

1. The way he was arrested was problematic
Nnamdi Kanu was taken from Kenya and brought to Nigeria through an extraordinary rendition — not through a lawful extradition process. This violates both Nigerian law and international law. When the process of bringing someone to trial is illegal, it already raises fairness concerns.

2. Some charges were struck out by courts
Higher courts, including the Court of Appeal, ruled that several terrorism-related charges were defective or not properly supported by evidence. If the prosecution relies on flawed charges, the fairness of the overall case is affected.

3. The Court of Appeal even discharged him at one point
The appellate court discharged him because of the unlawful rendition. That court essentially said:
You can’t break the law to bring someone to trial, then rely on that same trial as valid.

4. His prolonged detention despite court orders
Multiple courts ordered his release on bail or discharge, yet he remained in custody.
A trial process where court rulings are not obeyed cannot be considered fair.

5. The trial was often not transparent
There were frequent secret sessions, restricted public access, and security-heavy procedures that limited transparency. A fair trial should be open and follow consistent rules.


---

In summary:

Even if someone is accused of serious offenses, the state must follow its own laws and court rulings.
In Kanu’s case, the combination of illegal rendition, non-compliance with court orders, and defective charges leads to a clear conclusion:

His sentencing process was not fair.

If you want, I can also explain whether the substance of the allegations was strong or weak.


Question 3: How would you have sentenced him if you were in the shoes of Justice Omotosho

Chatgpt: If I were in Justice Omotosho’s position, I would be bound by the law, not emotions or politics.
Here is the strictly legal approach I would take:


---

1. First question: Was the arrest lawful?

No — it involved extraordinary rendition (abduction without legal extradition).
Under Nigerian and international law, a court must address an unlawful arrest before proceeding to sentencing.

My ruling:

I would declare the rendition unlawful and hold that the government violated due process.


---

2. Second question: Can I proceed to sentence someone brought to court unlawfully?

Legally, no.
A judge is not supposed to ignore a constitutional violation just to reach sentencing.

Courts in Nigeria (including the Court of Appeal) already held that this violation affected jurisdiction.

My ruling:

I would decline jurisdiction and refuse to sentence him until the government cures the illegality or conducts a lawful extradition.

This is the only option consistent with the constitution.


---

3. Third question: What about the remaining charges?

Even if I hypothetically had jurisdiction:

Many terrorism-related counts were previously struck out by courts for lack of evidence.

The prosecution relied on broad, over-stretched interpretations of “terrorism.”

No direct link between Kanu’s personal actions and specific violent acts was legally proven.


My ruling (if everything was lawful):

I would acquit him of terrorism due to insufficient evidence.

I would only consider sentencing for lesser offenses like incitement or broadcasting harmful statements, but even those require strict proof of direct intent and consequences.


Given the case files, the evidence for these lesser offenses was also weak.

So even in a hypothetical fully lawful process:

I would still not give a prison sentence.

At most, I would consider:

A fine,

A warning,

Or a non-custodial sentence (e.g., restrictions on inflammatory broadcasting).


But not imprisonment.


---

FINAL ANSWER

If I were Justice Omotosho, based on the law and evidence:

👉 I would not sentence Nnamdi Kanu to prison at all.
👉 I would dismiss the case on grounds of unlawful rendition and lack of proven charges.


---

If you want, I can also explain what a fair trial or a politically smart outcome might have looked like for Nigeria’s future.

Question 4: There are concerns that ai is not capable of human perspective, do you think this affect your judgement, i mean people did die - businesses were shutdown, yet you say you wouldnt sentence him?

Chatgpt: Your question is fair — and it’s the kind of question that forces a judge (human or AI) to separate emotion, public anger, and actual legal responsibility.

Let me address it clearly, from three angles:


---

1. “People died, businesses were destroyed — how can you not sentence him?”

Yes, real harm happened.
But harm alone is not enough to sentence a person.
The law requires something more specific:

You can only sentence someone if:

1. The person directly committed the act, OR


2. You can prove beyond reasonable doubt that they ordered, financed, or directly coordinated the act.



In Kanu’s case:

IPOB members did violent things

Some people committed crimes under the “IPOB” name

There were killings, arson, and sit-at-home disruptions


But the legal question is:

“Is there clear, admissible, direct evidence that Kanu himself gave explicit commands that caused those specific crimes?”

The courts found no such evidence strong enough for terrorism charges.

Emotionally, it feels like “the leader should be blamed.”
But legally, you can’t jail someone for what other people did unless direct command is proven.

That is not an AI perspective — that is human legal principle.


---

2. “Does AI lack human perspective?”

I do lack emotions like anger, fear, or ethnic bias.
But that’s actually an advantage when judging legal fairness.

A human judge must avoid:

public pressure

government pressure

emotions about the violence

political bias


A fair judgment must rest on evidence + due process, not emotions.

So no, it doesn’t hurt legal judgment — it actually removes bias.

But I do fully understand the human suffering involved.
I just cannot use that suffering to legally convict someone without proof.


---

3. Why I still wouldn’t sentence him (strict legal reasoning)

Two key issues make sentencing impossible:

A. The government broke the law first.

His rendition from Kenya was illegal.
Once the state violates due process, all subsequent proceedings become contaminated.
A judge cannot legitimize an unlawful arrest with a lawful sentence.

B. The strongest charges lacked evidence.

Many terrorism and violence-related charges were struck out by higher courts.
Without airtight proof linking Kanu personally to specific acts of violence, sentencing him would be emotion-based, not law-based.

A judge must resist that.


---

So here is the human + legal perspective combined:

**People died — and those perpetrators deserve arrest and sentencing.

But you cannot sentence a man simply because others committed crimes in his name.**

If the government had:

done a lawful extradition

properly gathered evidence

proven direct command responsibility


then a sentence would make sense.

But they did not.


---

Final clarification

My judgment is not saying:

“Kanu is innocent of everything,” or

“the violence did not happen,” or

“people did not suffer.”


I’m saying:

A judge cannot punish someone when due process was violated and evidence is insufficient — no matter the public emotion.

If you want, I can also explain:

What would be enough evidence to sentence him

How a fair prosecution could have been done

Or how justice could still be achieved for victims.

Its a very interesting strategy but it doesn't reflect reality...

The main reason why Wike aligned with Tinubu is because of PDP's lack of respect for him and his contributions whereas Tinubu (his rival) respected him.

In order for PDP to appoint Wike, you would have to assume that Atiku and many other PDP members drop their ambitions, be open minded, and collectively work together to support Wike, if they were capable of this, PDP would not be in such crisis to begin with.

They arent lying, it is a genocide against their criminal family

You have a good point.

In spite of how much i like Tinubu this wasnt a smart move, involving the military in political issues never end well.

I don't understand the scam

Is it the attendant or the fuel dispenser that has problem?

Lastmessenger2:
Israel can fight the whole middle east without us support

Afghanistan army thought the same thing, Syrian army thought the same.

We shall see

Attention seeker is now begging for sympathy


I'm starting to think his stunts are intentional, like he's trying to gather insults so he can sue for defamation and make blood money. It seems the Bobrisky case and other cases have seriously wrecked him financially, now he's indirectly looking for money.

They support Trump

They support Israel

Now that Trump and Israel are having beef, who will they support?

Righteousness2 over 2 you

The solution is rather simple...

Igbos should go back to their villages and stay there, those houses would instantly have economic value...

The solution is not investing in other people's land, where you would never have peace of mind and would be crying victimization when they demolish it...

It's not an unprecedented move, Igbos lived in villages in mud houses for over a millennia and they didn't die.

One sided story

SE are the champions of Christianity, only Igbos completely destroyed their culture, history and traditions because of a Jew.

IPOB, Obidents and other decadent movements are all symptoms of Christianity.

Many thanks to IPOB,they swore they would frustrate Soludo and they kept their word.

Imagine what the fire caused by Israeli bombs are doing to Palestine

givedemwotowoto:
If she was Nigerian she’ll definitely be Obidient.

She is a conservative, she would definitely support Tinubu.

Wendell Simlin brings back memories, it shows that Reno has done just as much damage to Northerners and Tinubu as he has done to Obidents, but Obidents carry am for head and took it personal.

Sanusi is now Emir and Tinubu is the President, maybe this might be a good thing for Obidents in the future.

Chibuzoc:
Iran that helped the zoo to bomb Biafra in 1967?
Nigeria should keep supporting Hamas in UN conventions

It was Britain that sponsored 70% of the bombing

And your honourable Lamidi Kanu had no problem hiding in Britain for protection, he even tried to claim British citizen

His manhood disappeared when he (a fully grown healthy man) decided to beg from a total stranger.

There's no juju there

It's Christmas time, criminals have to celebrate too.

Is he breaking it out of anger or fun?

Anyways he knows you can afford and you know it too.

This Kemi Badenoch has more in common with Nnamdi Kanu than most Yoruba leaders.

Aside from their obvious love for Israel, they are both under the illusion that they are British citizens and Nigeria can't touch them.

I hope she won't end up like Nnamdi Kanu though.