THE BBC AND NDIGBO - NO LOVE LOST

Don't let the prominent use (abuse?) of the pictures of Nnamdi Kanu fool you. The antipathy between the British colonial overlords and the stubborn Igbo race has outlived most of the major players in the fight for Nigerian paper independence. This is why modern day British diplomats and the business class like Paul Arkwright, who were not born when it all started, take a stark anti-Igbo stance that seems ingrained in their DNA.

If the current struggle for #Restructuring of the Nigerian polity is restricted to the demand for #TrueFederalism, the attitude of Whitehall would be exactly the same, as it has been over the past 50years of the London sponsored Gowonian legacy. That is why Ndigbo elite who loudly proclaim a lack of interest in the breakup of Nigeria are not getting any support whatsoever from the British establishment. THE UK WANTS NIGERIA TO REMAIND THE WAY IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF QUEEN AND EMPIRE. Many southern Nigerians feigning sophistication, with a British passport or visa to boot, get carried away with the deceptive reportage of BBC which refuses to provide the necessary gravitas for dealing with Nigeria's many dysfunctions.

Take the following report for example. Was it an editorial or a narrative of a young journalist sent on an all expenses paid safari to check out Biafra land or whatever name they call Igboland out of earshot. Could it have been for the silly purpose of providing an unnecessary update on disabled Biafran war veterans, a story that is of absolutely no interest to the members of Parliament or the young operators in London Financial Sector? He couldn't even include his/her name.

The BBC falsely claims to take no side in any revolution. Of course the current turmoil in Nigeria does not measure up to that billing. Or does it? Worse that there is an agitation emanating from Igboland of all places. Such insufferable upstarts!

I have never regarded the peoples of India as submissive. However I just wonder what would have happened if Brittannia had to cope with a colony the size of India populated by Ndigbo. I just wonder. The Mau-Mau rebellion in Kenya would perhaps have appeared like a picnic in comparison. Oh, how the British loved and still love the north of Nigeria in contrast, in spite of the depressing human development indices in a place comparable only with post Siad Barre Somalia.

The unrelenting negative attitude of the government, institutions and media of the UK towards Ndigbo is simply payback. Nnamdi Kanu, the poster child and enfant terrible, and of course this current agitation for Biafra, have got nothing to do with it. The British perhaps hate Ndigbo more than the Hausa-Fulani. Yes, that's a strong allegation. I am old enough to make it.

'Nigeria treats us like slaves' - but is Biafra the answer? - BBC News - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-40506251

TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THE MILITARY INVASION OF THE SOUTH-EAST

I need help here. 

For over a decade, my television station of choice has been ChannelsTV. This is not unique to me otherwise they would not consistently win the Station Of The Year Award over and over again. I watch ChannelsTV especially when I need to put certain conflicting reports to rest. One cannot count on NTA for factual reportage.

Now some people have recently been accusing ALL major television networks, including ChannelsTV and of course TVC, of colluding with and being on the payroll of the Federal Government. This is a weighty accusation which I would want to dig into over time before I can take a definitive position.

However, apart from any editorial position and posturing on these happenings in Aba, Afara-Ukwu in Abia State and other parts of the South-East, has our favourite ChannelsTV been providing viewers with footage out of the South-East, hence allowing them draw their own conclusions? The surfeit of self produced videos by interested parties has been a source of serious concern. People weep over them. Others condemn them as untrue or true but sensational, and since they affect our sensibilities need to be suppressed. Meanwhile ChannelsTV and others REFUSE to give viewers authentic coverage.

If indeed the IPOBians are as bad and violent as reported, we need to see the pictures, together with records of the "justified" reactions of the military supposedly "just passing by or minding their own business." Without these, I sense a serious cover-up. Those who have been shouting themselves hoarse that a pogrom, (if genocide is too harsh a word for you), is in the offing, see in these developments the evidence they have been looking for.

ChannelsTV is fully on the ground in Awka, Enugu and the rest of the South-East. It provides blanket coverage for the activities of Governor Willie Obiano of Anambra State. I have the sneaky feeling that the monsters at the Abuja military high command and 82 Division Enugu instructed them to stay away from their areas of operation. Otherwise all military exercises are newsworthy and are thus given comprehensive coverage. That was how I got to know the popular NTA military correspondent Muhammadu. In the heat of the Fulani campaign in Agatuland, ChannelsTV's Charles Erukaa kept us updated on the happenings there despite the obvious risk to his life. Why then are all the stories about the carnage emanating from Operation Python Dance in the South-East coming only from the "enemy" side?
This is sinister.

Who will tell Rivers elders that I too am not Biafran!

BIAFRA? TO BE OR NOT TO BE. 
THAT'S THE QUESTION 
I can hardly believe that I wrote these lines 2+ years ago. 
.........................................

We suddenly have a new industry in town. I am referring to the stampede to disown the still non-violent agitation of probably misguided but clearly disillusioned 40-something-year-old Igbo youths for the rebirth of Biafra. Apparently nobody wants to be left out. At least not this writer. I hereby stand up to be counted.

I condemn and oppose (not violently) the renewed agitation for the moribund republic which for three years was sustained by the blood, sweat and tears of my age mates. Those of us favoured to still be alive are now between 64 and 73 years of age, proud grandparents. We are grateful to God, but not necessarily to Nigeria in which we have had varied and traumatic experiences these past 45 years. We are not complaining. We have mellowed, with reduced expectations.

But the youth are complaining, seriously. They never saw what we saw, the hide and seek in Lagos, the gauntlet at the Makurdi bridge, the surge of arrivals at the Enugu Railway Station (one without a head, need I remind anyone?), and at the various motor parks at Onitsha, Aba, Owerri, Port Harcourt. Since that generation is rightly or wrongly accused of being far less cerebral than its predecessor, it will be safe to assume that its teeming members most likely never dug into the vast post-war writings of Igbo intellectuals in the mould of Fourth Dimension publications. I can boldly ascribe to the Emir of Kano the clear articulation of the realisation that these young scions of Ndigbo learnt the sad aspects of walking the streets of Nigeria “while Igbo”, where else, in the streets of Lagos, Kano, Abuja and Port Harcourt.

When the Rivers Elders and Leaders Council (RELEC) distanced itself from the struggle for the realisation of Republic of Biafra, they are not saying anything new. Most governments and citizens of the Southeast geopolitical zone have said as much. I hereby publicly ask them to count me in.

However, that does not in any way indicate my agreement on the proper response from the government and the security agencies. I have earlier written and actually commended the Rivers State Police Command on this. They should keep up their restraint. Those who think otherwise are the real warmongers, looking for blood when none is called for.

Albert Horsfall and his chiefs have faulted organisers of the pro-Biafra protest, IPOB, described it as uncalled for, adding that Rivers people were not Biafrans. That’s correct. Neither indeed am I.

As for the yet-to-be-proven allegations over the transport of Igbo youths in trailers and buses from the five states in the Southeast zone to protest in Port Harcourt, I wonder when millions of Igbo youths resident in Rivers State got discounted. One cannot be counted absent in one’s presence. This could and should have been an MKO proverb.

Which reminds me, what on earth are the Chibok women and their supporters doing in the heart of Abuja? Don’t they know where Chibok is? Or Gwarzo for that matter? I recall that Ogoni activists boarded aircrafts and descended on Shell and UN offices in The Hague, London and New York. We hailed them for their brave, unrelenting and forthright social and political activism. The Dutch, British and Americans tolerated them or at worst ignored them. But in the case of IPOB or MASSOB, we conveniently forget long-established and accepted norms. This unwavering knee-jerk reaction to matters Igbo will never get Nigeria anywhere. Quote me.

THIS BIAFRA THING HAS SO MANY MOVING PARTS. . ARE WE KEEPING TRACK?

Biafra: The American Lawsuit Against Key Nigerian Officials

QUOTE:
"LIKE NIGERIA, SUDAN ALSO FANCIED ITSELF INDISSOLUBLE JUST BECAUSE IT'S CONSTITUTION SAID SO. "
Written by Russel Andrew Crowe
Created: 25 August 2017.

A LANDMARK CIVIL DAMAGES AND HUMAN rights lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against sixteen Nigerian officials for their direct or indirect complicity and in the extrajudicial killings or torture of Igbos who were protesting marginalization based on their ethnicity, political viewpoint or religion.

The Igbos organized themselves as the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), which is as nonviolent as, if not as symbolic as - for instance - the 'agitation' for Republic of Texas, or of California in USA; and even Scotland that its own Premier is the one leading the charge for a referendum of autonomy from Britain. In all these cases, the agitators are not being shot at, tortured or killed by the army and police.

I determined from my inquiries that service of the summons and complaint, as well as the initial orders has been accomplished by certified international courier on all defendants. They are currently in default for failure to file a response within 21 days of service as stipulated in pertinent United States federal rules of civil procedure. The lead defendant is Nigeria's army chief, General Tukur Buratai.
The claims of the plaintiffs are grounded under two muscular United States’ statutes - the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA or ATS - the Alien Tort Statute); and the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA). Both laws have extraterritorial reach, meaning that they allow US federal courts to assert long-arm jurisdiction that extends beyond the borders of United States.

Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) provides that 'the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort (or civil wrong) committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States'. Since 1980, courts have interpreted this statute to allow foreign citizens to seek remedies in US courts for human rights violations for conduct committed outside the United States.

Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 is a statute that permits civil suits in the United States against foreign individuals who - acting in an official capacity for any foreign nation - committed torture and/or extrajudicial killing.
Both laws, especially the TVPA endow individuals or their legal representatives to sue foreign individuals, including officials, to collect damages for extrajudicial killings or torture committed “under color of foreign law.”

In the instant case, the plaintiffs already won first round as the United States District Court has granted them leave to file anonymously as “John Does” after making a ruling that they have a well-founded fear of retribution/persecution by the government of Nigeria or its agents or officials if their identities were disclosed. Violence against Igbos by individuals in the military/police and directed and encouraged by their superiors is notorious and well-known to the international community.

The defendants would be foolhardy to believe this lawsuit will be difficult to win in the United States or stultify and drag on as might have been expected if filed in Nigeria. Judicial independence and the rule of law, as well as speedy trials are the hallmarks of United States jurisprudence. There are legions of US judicial precedents pointing to the high likelihood of a summary judgment for the plaintiffs.

Defendants will have no defense of official immunity because they are being sued in their individual capacities and as officials who purportedly 'acted under color of law'. They are not sovereigns or diplomats. Further, extrajudicial killings or torture are crimes against humanity. Upon the prompting of the aggrieved, US courts will task any foreign government officials that perpetrate atrocities of the kind visited on the Igbos of Nigeria. It's not a secret that Nigerian officials had, in the past, engaged in misconducts that resulted in monetary judgments against them - in the millions of dollars - in the United States. This case appears bound for the same predictable result, unless handled differently from the inexplicable bravado and laches that doomed Nigeria in the previous suits preferred against its officials in the United States.

The factual case against the defendants is convincing. All Nigerians know of the widespread beatings and slaughter of Igbos by elements of Nigerian security forces for merely and peacefully exercising their fundamental human right to protest marginalization and urge a new political dispensation. Indeed, beyond Nigeria, Amnesty International and other credible foreign sources have confirmed those killings and torture; and to be sure - their reports will be deemed probative and admissible under standards of evidence long established in US federal courts in cases of this nature. Plus, plaintiffs are all on standby in the United States to air their tearful testimonies in open court. It even makes it worse that the Nigerian army is reported to be denying and covering up an atrocity that was so open and notorious.
It doesn't make it any better that the Nigerian government - so far - appears to have condoned the wanton killings by failing to publicly discipline the officers that pulled the trigger or the commanders that gave the order. It's even worse that President Buhari, upon his return from vacation, reportedly ordered his troops to renew their crackdown on Igbo protesters. That VP Osibanjo gave no such orders when Buhari was away is noticeably demonstrative of the widespread notion that Buhari - a Fulani core Muslim - has profiled the Christian Igbos for persecution because of their ethnicity, their love of freedom, and the perception that they did not vote for him in the 2015 election that saw him to power.

At present, the savage mentality that is directed against Igbos in Nigeria of this era is widespread and underscored by the notorious threat to expel or destroy millions of Igbos and seize their properties in the Muslim northern states of Nigeria if they refused to surrender their right to reside and work peacefully in that part of the country. And the federal, state, and local governments appear as spectators to the looming genocide - a spectacle that is not lost on a wary international community; and which might as yet make Nigeria a 'state actor' in the ultimate fallouts. Such fallouts will surely raise the specter of an International Criminal Court intervention that may engulf the present crop of Nigerian leadership at the very top.

The Nigerian defendants are mistaken if they believe they can defend from the safe confines of Nigeria. If the case goes to trial, they will be required - under penalty of default or even contempt - to appear in a United States court to testify under oath and dangerously probing cross-examination that will dwell on the details of the Igbo killings and the complicity of other unnamed Nigerian officials, which shall include whether they received their orders from the presidential levels of security leadership to use lethal force on unarmed protesters. This evidence could be used in a sequel criminal prosecution before the International Criminal Court or a special court of the likes employed in the prosecution and conviction of Chad’s former dictator, Hissene Habre in Senegal. The State governors - of Abia and Anambra - where these killings largely occurred will also be ensnared by virtue of being the 'chief security officers' of their States. Those two governors are also listed as defendants.

If the defendants refuse to appear, default judgments will be entered against them, in addition to the prospects of undefended huge damage awards that will run in the millions of dollars. The ultimate loser - diplomatically and financially - will be the Nigerian and State governments that presumably control the officials who acted under color of state law when the Igbo killings occurred. In the end, it may snowball to the government of Nigeria being listed as a state sponsor of terrorism in the same manner as was done with Sudan, etc. In the interim and despite the continuing menace of Boko Haram, the United Nations Security Council (or the US - under the Leahy Act) could vote an arms embargo on Nigeria to prevent the diversion of military weapons that could be geared to perpetrating more official violence against the Igbo people.

Christian lobby groups in the United States were largely responsible for making Sudan a pariah state, which culminated in the creation of South Sudan through a referendum organized and supervised by the United Nations. Like Nigeria, Sudan also fancied itself indissoluble just because its Constitution said so. That same political dynamic will be at work against Nigeria if the TVPA/ATCA litigation is not resolved amicably before Nigeria’s dirty linen is exposed at trial in an open United States courtroom for the entire world to see.

Better yet, there's a third way - a time honored window of opportunity the defendants can exploit to end the case early and avoid the severe rigors of a foreign trial. US trial lawyers and the courts within which they operate are known to have a proclivity for encouraging any alternative dispute resolution path that brings closure through a pre-trial fair settlement of suits. Though this suit has progressed to a point of some disadvantage to the defendants, it's not too late for them to begin now to seek out plaintiffs' lawyers and start talking to them.

Credit: The Whistler