Monday, 27 August 2018

Jobless and homeless Nigerian in India.

Thursday, 9 August 2018


Custom Search

Tuesday, 18 April 2017


We Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) worldwide led by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu wish to state that the substance of this press statement is traceable to the diplomatic blunder committed by no less a person than the British High Commissioner to Nigeria, His Excellency, Mr. Paul Arkwright recently in Kogi State of Nigeria where he was reported to have delivered a public lecture on the topic: "Brexit: Lessons, Challenges and Opportunities for Nigeria" at the Federal University, Lokoja, on Thursday, 6th April, 2017.
Asked about the position of Britain on the groups pushing for independence from Nigeria, the envoy said the UK remained firm in its support for one Nigeria. We have therefore taken time to painstakingly analyse this statement credited to the British Envoy and we find it very unfortunate and distasteful that a seasoned diplomat of Mr. Arkwright’s standing could have displayed such ignorance of international law and protocol. From our very careful observation, we are of the view that two factors could have been responsible for Mr.

Arkwright’s uncharacteristic diplomatic blunder. The first that immediately comes to mind is ignorance and the second, which is equally unfortunate, even more so than the first, is mischief. Riding on these assumptions, we shall now take the liberty of this press statement to address these two possible inadequacies which His Excellency might be suffering from and to clear every doubt his stance may have engendered in the minds of a largely undiscerning and docile populace. PRESUMED IGNORANCE: We would want to presume that the statement of Mr. Arkwright may have been influenced by that opening phrase in the Gen.

Abdulsalami Abubakar (Nigerian) 1999 Constitution which reads as follows: “We the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Having firmly and solemnly resolved, to live in unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation under God,…” We make haste therefore to inform Mr. Arkwright that even the most poorly lettered man on the streets of Lokoja (venue of Mr. Arkwright’s public lecture) agree that the Amended Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar 1999 Constitution lied about itself and that the first lie in that Constitution is the wasteful phrase: “We the people”. It is the duty of IPOB to clear the illusions this deceptive phrase might have planted in the pliable mind of Mr. Arkwright and others like him.
No doubt, the above phrase seeks to convey the misleading impression that ordinary people of Nigeria willingly in a conference, meeting or assembly convened by Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar somewhere in Abuja in 1999 agreed to vest immutable non-negotiable sovereignty on the Nigerian nation through the instrumentality of the said 1999 Constitution. This is a blatant lie, deception and fraud concocted by self serving individuals in Nigeria to deceive themselves and those not enlightened enough to know what is being done in their name. Not minding the obvious limitations and inherent defects of the Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar 1999 Constitution by virtue of the lie "We the people....." preamble, we recognise the centrality of sovereignty in the field of International law. However, as rigid and important as this concept may be to the proponents of One Nigeria, it still admits and recognises some notable exceptions. It is therefore not immutable and cannot as a result be construed in absolute terms. In other words, sovereignty of states under international law is not cast in iron and can be broken or dissolved.
 The point IPOB is making here is to the effect that, in the exercise of the sovereign powers bestowed on it, an artificial creation like the Nigerian state or indeed any other country, can limit its own sovereignty or surrender a part of same. The truth as it stands today is that the Nigerian state, has out of its own volition already surrendered Nigerian sovereignty over Bakassi Peninsular, which therefore enables any part of Nigeria or section thereof to secede when they so decide, contrary to the wishes and ambitions of the neo-colonialists like Mr. Arkwright. This is equally true and remains same for even Great Britain whom Mr. Arkwright represents in Nigeria. Let us explain.
We will use English judicial authorities to convey the message home to the British Envoy before we turn to the Nigerian judicial authorities. In the case of Blackburn vs. Attorney-General, Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [1971] EWCA Civ J0510-2, [1971] 1 WLR 1037 where Mr. Blackburn was concerned about the application of Her Majesty's government to join the European Common Market by seeking to sign up to the Treaty of Rome. He brought two actions against Her Majesty's Government Edward Heath through the then Attorney-General, in which he sought declarations to the effect that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, Her Majesty's Government will surrender in part the sovereignty of The Crown in Parliament (British people) forever. He canvassed the view that in so doing the Government will be acting in breach of the law.

Mr. Blackburn pointed out that many regulations made by the European Economic Community will become automatically binding on the people of Great Britain: and that all the Courts of Great Britain, including the House of Lords, will have to follow the decisions of a foreign European Court in certain defined respects, including the drafting of the Treaty itself. To buttress his point Mr. Blackburn made reference to an earlier decision by the Court of Common Market Costa v. E. N. E. L. ( 1964 Common Market Law Reports, 425) in February, 1964, in which the European Court in its judgment said that: ".….the member states, albeit within limited spheres, have restricted their sovereign rights and created a body of law applicable both to their nationals and to themselves". When this contention over the sanctity of sovereignty came before the Court of Appeal in England, a majority of the panel of judges (Lord Denning dissenting) reasoned and held that the power to enter into Treaties was itself a power of the Crown acting on advice from ministers. In simple terms, it means that sovereignty can indeed be tampered with by a government and as such cannot be held to be sacrosanct.


There is no doubt that the Nigerian Head of State (President) has the powers to enter into treaties with foreign nations (both bilateral and multilateral) which is binding on the whole Nigerian state. Section 12 of the Amended Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar 1999 Constitution has laid down the procedure for the domestication of such treaties as a condition precedent to their activation as a law in Nigeria. There is no question regarding the binding nature of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (providing among others for the right to self-determination) on the Nigerian state. Equally true is the fact that not only that Nigeria is a signatory to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Nigerian Parliament has entrenched the said Charter as part of the corpus juris of the country by way of domestication in compliance with the dictates of section 12 of the Constitution earlier referred to. It should be noted that Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right most lucidly proclaims in clear language that: “All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen.” As we earlier stated, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right became part of Nigerian laws by virtue of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement Act), Cap 10, Laws of the Federation (LFN), 1990.
The status of this very important legislation came up for interpretation before the Nigerian Supreme Court in the case of Abacha vs. Fawehinmi (2001) 51 WRN 29; (2000) 6 NWLR 228, (2002) 3 LRC 296, (2001) 1 CHR 95. In answering that crucial question, Justice Ogundare (of blessed memory) delivering the lead judgment of the full panel of the Nigerian Supreme Court had this to say: “Where, however, the treaty is enacted into law by the National Assembly, as was the case with the African Charter which is incorporated into our municipal (i.e. domestic) law by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap. 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 (hereinafter is referred to simply as Cap. 10), it becomes binding and our Courts must give effect to it like all other laws falling within the Judicial power of the Courts. By Cap. 10 the African Charter is now part of the laws of Nigeria and like all other laws the Courts must uphold it. The Charter gives to citizens of member states of the Organisation of African Unity rights and obligations, which rights and obligations are to be enforced by our Courts, if they must have any meaning… No doubt Cap. 10 is a statue with international flavour. Being so, therefore, I would think that if here is a conflict between it and another statue, its provisions will prevail over those of that other statue for the reason that it is presumed that the legislature does not intend to breach an international obligation. To this extent I agree with their Lordships of the Court below that the Charter possesses "a greater vigour and strength" than any other domestic statue.” It is important to point out that the provision of Section 12 of the Nigerian Constitution declaring null and void any treaty entered between Nigeria and any other country/countries will not acquire the force of law in Nigeria until domesticated, holds no water in international law, nor before International Courts/Tribunals.
What this simply means is that the Nigerian state cannot, under any conceivable circumstance, resign from its obligation to honour any international treaty it freely entered into by citing its anachronistic domestic laws as a defence. In other words, Nigeria cannot point to its own domestic laws as constituting a limitation to the fulfilment of its obligation under any international treaty it freely entered into. Put more correctly, domestic laws cannot be allowed to constitute a drag on the operation of foreign laws under which a state party has undertaken to fulfil international obligations. Indeed, this is the heart and soul of Article 7 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties under International law.
The argument put up by the Government of Nigeria to the effect that Bakassi Peninsula could not be yielded up to Cameroun on the principal ground that section 12 of the Nigerian Constitution would need to be complied with so as to effectively delete Bakassi as a Local Government by way of Constitutional amendment was roundly rejected by the International Court of Justice. (See generally Cameroon v. Nigeria, ICJ Reports, 2002, pp. 303, 346.) Today, Bakassi Peninsula, formerly of Cross-Rivers State of Nigeria, is no more a Nigerian territory even without any constitutional amendment.

 The Nigerian Supreme Court has now accepted this position as a correct representation of the law binding on the Nigerian state. A practical demonstration of this acceptance is made manifest in the case of Attorney-General of Cross-Rivers State vs. Attorney-General of the Federation and Anor (2005) 15 NWLR (Pt.947) pg 71 where the effect of the ICJ judgment on the erstwhile littoral segment of Cross-River State was captured thus; “The effect of the judgment of the International Court of Justice dated 10/10/2002 on the land and maritime boundary between Nigeria and Cameroun is that it has wiped off what use to be the estuarine sector of Cross River State as a result of which the State is hemmed in by the new international boundary between Nigeria and Cameroun. That being the case, there seems to not be any estuarine boundary between Akwa Ibom State and Cross River State with the result that Cross River no longer has a seaward boundary.” In fact, in a later 2012 case of Attorney-General of Cross-Rivers State vs. Attorney-General of the Federation and Anor, the Supreme Court (SC.250/2009), speaking through Rhodes-Vivour, J.S.C., was more punchy when it eloquently declared with a tone of finality that; “This Court has no jurisdiction to decide ownership of oil wells located on oil rich Bakasi Peninsula for the simple reason that Bakasi Peninsula is foreign territory. It is Cameroun land. Supreme Court jurisdiction is restricted to Nigeria land.” SUMMATION: The jurisprudential beacon offered by the galaxy of authorities examined above leaves us with the only conviction that Mr. Paul Arkwright’s position is out of tune with contemporary realities which reflects poorly on his standing as a seasoned diplomat. He must work hard to redeem his image which is being seen by many concerned Africans as one steeped in gross incompetence devoid of any intellectual depth.

 A good starting point will be for him to acknowledge that this Nigerian state as presently constituted, created by his fellow countryman Frederick Luggard, has voluntarily, by domesticating Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right, accepted to give fillip to any section of the country wishing to secede by facilitating the exercise of that undeniable right through referendum as was recently done in the United Kingdom, where Mr. Arkwright comes from and is representing, regarding Scotland. The second duty on the part of Mr. Paul Arkwright is for him to wake up to his real duties by impressing upon the Nigerian Government the imperative of discharging its obligation (under UN Declaration and African Charter) of facilitating a referendum for a peaceful Biafra exit from Nigeria.
It is our hope that Mr. Paul Arkwright appreciates this new reality, otherwise we would be forced to draw the alternative inference that he set out ab initio to cause mischief and test the will and resolve of IPOB. This would be most unfortunate if it were to be so since the pervasive consequences of such an action will not spare anyone trying to subvert the will of the Biafran people. For record purposes, the Conservative Party led British Government of Theresa May has nothing to fear from the emergence of Biafra, after all we Biafrans are the most Anglophile of all races in Africa. Should Mr. Arkwright continue to pursue his flawed and misguided adventure of insisting on the indivisibility of their 'One Nigeria', it would be fatal and suicidal because we would never ever stop until Biafra is liberated. We wish to stop here.

 Dr. Ikenna Chinaka Mrs Grace Ukpai
IPOB Spokespersons

Custom Search

Tuesday, 14 March 2017

Wednesday, 1 March 2017

Saturday, 18 February 2017

Sunday, 5 February 2017

Title: #Igbo-Ukwu bronze bowl. Date: Between 700 CE - 1000 CE. Igbo-Ukwu is notable for three archaeological sites, where excavations have found bronze artifacts from a highly sophisticated bronze metal-working culture dating perhaps to the ninth or tenth century, centuries before other known bronzes of the region. The three sites include Igbo Isaiah (a shrine), Igbo Richard (a burial chamber), and Igbo Jonah (a cache).


Sunday, 15 January 2017

IPOB drags Uwazuruike Thru The Mud Over Nnamdi Kanu Accusations Written by Clifford Iroanya Category: Press Statements

Telling The World About The Real Person Called Raphael Lebeanya Uwazuruike (Part-1) On the 11th of January 2017, we (the undersigned) on behalf of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), gave Raphael Lebeanya Uwazuruike four days to provide evidence to support his claim that Nnamdi Kanu and IPOB members are fraudsters who are out to deceive gullible people. We further discovered that Uwazuruike stated on The online news media that: “When I met him (Kanu) in London he had no job and no certificate; he was into internet crime.” This quote can be confirmed by clicking on the following LINK. The four days given to Raphael Lebeanya Uwazuruike has elapsed, but he has not been able to provide any evidence to support his baseless accusations. Like the Hausa Fulani Islamic Jihadists he is now working for, Uwazuruike peddle allegations which he knows to be a lie and definitely has no evidence to substantiate. 
The same thing Buhari did with Nigerian judges, by intimidating them into believing that Nnamdi Kanu is guilty of some phantom treasonable felony as charged without proof, is the same thing Uwazuruike is hoping to do with brown envelope and the help of hostile Yoruba media implacably opposed to Biafra restoration. Ralph Lebeanya Uwazuruike having betrayed his people, the same way Ifeajuna did during the war, is hoping to destroy this present earth shattering resurgent global agitation for Biafra spearheaded by Nnamdi Kanu out of shame, envy, greed and jealousy. He hopes to damage the global standing of IPOB and that of our leader by impugning his and our collective integrity. 
Anybody who has been privileged to listen to Nnamdi Kanu preach his gospel of Biafra restoration on Radio Biafra or any of his numerous stress interviews will know that only very few people alive today in this world can be said to be his equal or match intellectually. How can a man that taught millions of people on radio and television not be educated? All you need to do is watch one of Nnamdi Kanu's interviews on Biafra Television or on YouTube to validate this claim. Can anyone point to one single stress interview granted by Ralph Lebeanya Uwazuruike that received international acclaim throughout the decades he was left all alone to pilot the affairs of Biafra restoration? Predictably, the answer is a resounding no. 

We did promise to unmask Uwazuruike to the entire world should he fail to respond with evidence within four days. We will start with Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s journey through the academic world to put the records straight. We would invite Uwazuruike to be so forth coming with the history of his academic pursuits to let the world judge between Nnamdi Kanu and Ralph Lebeanya Uwazuruike who is educated and who is not. Nnamdi Kanu started his academic journey at Cameroun-Road-End Primary School, Aba in the present-day Abia state. His teacher then was Mrs. Akpa, the mother of the then Miss Nnennaya Akpa. Before the Nigeria/British war of genocide on Biafra, this school was known as Dick Organ Primary School and currently the school has been renamed Green Street Primary School. After completing two years at Cameroun-Road-End Primary School, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu proceeded to the best primary school in Umuahia known as Library Avenue Primary School where he completed his primary school education. For his secondary education, the IPOB leader attended the prestigious Government College Umuahia formerly called Fisher High School which boasts of the likes of Chinua Achebe, Cyprian Ekwensi, Ken Saro-Wiwa, etc. Throughout his stay at the school, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was a boarding student and his dormitory was Cozens House, which is the hostel named after the co-author (Stone & Cozens) of a popular secondary school Biology textbook. 
He completed his secondary education and went further to the Rivers State School of Arts and Science popularly known as School of Basic Studies in Rumuola Road in Igweocha (Port Harcourt) for his advanced level studies. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu started his tertiary education at the University of Nigeria Nsukka (UNN) where he was admitted into the Department of Geography, having agreed with his father to study Geography as a precondition to attending the Sowell Aviation College in Panama City Florida where he had a slot waiting for him to come and train as a pilot. 
While at UNN, he lived in the hostel, specifically in Akintola Hall and one of his closest friends was Samuel Ude from Abiriba who is now resident in the USA, Chinyere Asuzu resident in Aba Abia State, Chidiebere Iwebuka Asaba Delta State and many more who can be reached for confirmation. 

After two years at UNN and having received several theoretical lectures on rocks and typologies of rocks without setting his eyes on any practical example of these materials, Nnamdi Kanu felt that he was not getting the real training he yearned for and decided to persuade his father, His Royal Majesty (HRM) Eze Sir Israel Okwu Kanu to send him overseas to obtain an education that is evidence-based and experiential. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu traveled to England and was admitted to London Guildhall University now called London Metropolitan University (LMU). At LMU, he studied Politics and Economics and graduated with Second Class Upper Division, missing First Class Division very narrowly because of his publicly confessed difficulties with Applied Mathematics that accompanied Economics studies. It is on record that for the entire teaching life of Professor Ann Philips (Professor of Politics at London Metropolitan University), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was the only student who achieved a perfect score of 100% (16/16) in her course because of the exceptional quality of his research work and the term papers produced by him.
 We state without equivocations that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is the first and only person to work on a Thesis that provided an academic critique of the popular orthodoxy of “Dependency Theory” propounded by the renowned Political Economists Samir Amir and Walter Rodney. Supervised by Dr. James Chiriyankadath, Nnamdi Kanu made his choice of a thesis based on his strongly-held belief that Africans should not blame Europeans or the Western World for their woes.

His contention is that Africans are responsible for their lack-luster performance in leadership and governance and not people from other continents. In the history of academia till this day, no other African scholar has offered an academic critique of the Dependency Theory only Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, partly because of the penchant of most Africans towards finger-pointing instead of conducting dispassionate critical self-evaluation and introspection. While at LMU, Nnamdi Kanu was part of a group of black students who came up with the idea to engage in post-graduation works that would transform Africa from its current stage of stupor to a continent and society where leadership and good governance will be the ethos of existence, human relationships, and transactions. 
The following were members of the group; Jacques Tobo (Cameroon), George Ogunka (Ikwerre-Biafraland), Ayodele Dalghety (Guyana), Lolade Cameron-Cole (Oduduwa), Mului Mpopo (Tanzania), and Chris Kehinde Olopo (Oduduwa). These individuals can be contacted for the veracity of this claim. 
Having produced this abridged version of the academic history of Nnamdi Kanu, we invite the public to contact the individuals mentioned to ascertain the correctness of the information. On the other hand, Raphael Lebeanya Uwazuruike should provide the public with the name of the University where he studied Law and at least two names of his former classmates at the University.

We would like to know the title of Uwazuruike’s Thesis and the name of his supervising professor. Finally, Uwazuruike should provide the public with his Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) enrollment number since he claims to be a lawyer. Also, he should let us know the name and location of the Law Chambers where he worked or still working. From all indications, Raphael Lebeanya Uwazuruike is the person that does not have any certificate and therefore a fraudster. Had Uwazuruike Uwazuruike remained faithful to the cause of Biafra restoration and not engrossed in defrauding and deceiving unsuspecting Biafrans, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and IPOB would not have emerged.

Barrister Emma Nmezu
Spokesperson for IPOB

Dr. Clifford Chukwuemeka Iroanya
 Spokesperson for IPOB

 Alphonsus Uche Okafor-Mefor
Deputy Leader of IPOB

Custom Search

Wednesday, 4 January 2017

SHOCKING!!! Nnamdi Kanu’s Biafra War Begins With Buhari As Human Rights Groups, Int'l Medias & Foreign Observers Storm Abuja For Case, As IPOB Promise To Sink Nigeria.

Nnamdi Kanu

This is to inform the entire Indigenous people of Biafra (IPOB), that reputable Human rights organizations shall be storming Federal High Court Abuja, on the 10th of January 2017 to monitor court proceedings of the case involving the Federal government of Nigeria and Nnamdi Kanu.
Also to witness the case are renowned International Medias and Foreign Observers designated to monitor Binta Nyako's attitude and pattern in which she intends to carry out her nefarious plan to conduct secret trial which Nnamdi Kanu has bluntly opposed during the last session.
We at Biafra Writers in conjunction with the leadership of IPOB are urging every Biafran from far and near to storm Abuja for this purpose. We are also using this medium to urge business men and women residing both within and outside Abuja to dedicate that very day in honour of our leader who has paid so much sacrifice that we may have the freedom we dream of.
January 10th is a date we must all show solidarity to Nnamdi Kanu, a day we stand fearless in the face of evil, a day we send a message to Buhari's new puppet, Binta Nyako, that the court is not hers and she cannot do as she pleases, a day we say to Buhari... enough is enough, we must display our resolve to never allow Kanu and others be jailed secretly in exchange for the freedom of Binta's thieving husband, Murtala Nyako and son, Aziz Nyako.
Biafra Writers stand with Nnamdi Kanu....what about you?

Custom Search