“When we speak, the Zoo trembles. That is what happens when a cattle
rearing terrorist and pedophile is your ruler. Message to every
#Hardcore Biafran, if you find anybody in your village asking after
Radio Biafra, kill the Baboon Awusa Foolani or Yorobber bast*ard. Let
them keep searching as we keep tweeting for Biafra…. Lunatics.”
--This was the exact (verbatim) message posted on Nnamdi Kanu’s Twitter
handle on the 28th June 2015 at, approximately, 11:00 pm
Now, let me say this; before I had the sickening experience of going
through all the vitriol-filled social media platforms owned by Mr.
Nnamdi Kanu and reading the dangerously frightening, chilling and
venomous hate-filled rhetoric that this young man has been spewing, I
was one of those who disagreed with the current measures taken against
him. It reminded me of Mohammed Yusuf, who was a person that few knew
about until the government incarceration and murder of him turned him
into a Martyr. A martyrdom, which triggered bloodletting lunatics we are
petrified of today. I felt that Mr. Kanu’s imprisonment was
counterproductive. I believe he was playing a game, one which the
government took the bait! I feared that there were frightening parallels
between the current tensions raised by his incarceration and the
sectarian, religious and anti-government rage that preceded the current
insurgent uprising in the base of Biafra. In the same way that I felt
the government could have handled the situation and fallout of Mohammed
Yusuf’s capture in a more cautious manner, I also felt that the present
government should handle the capture of Mr. Nnamdi Kanu in a more
cautious way.
I simply feel that they should free him, with
surveillance, if only for the fact he is a hateful little Gremlin, with a
rather funny shaped head! I look at him as no more than a misguided,
attention seeking, fed with an over-fed ego. Looking for his 5 or 10
mins,, I still feel, going forward, that the government needs to be a
lot more careful, strategic and structured in the decisions it makes on
Mr. Nnamdi Kanu. So that tiny tittle anthills aren’t turned into
humorous mountains. A staring point would be to release him with station
some surveillance on him.
While doing some background on Mr. Nnamdi Kanu and reading his social
media posts, I came across scores and scores of his hate filled
rhetoric online, some speaking on mass murder, torture, maiming, really,
really unspeakable acts those he refers to as Awwusa, Foolani,
Yooroober and every tribe not from the South East. To say I was
flabbergasted is an understatement. It is unbelievable to me that a
human being can harbor that level of hatred. Like the insurgents killing
and bastardizing innocent people in the North East, I hope Mr. Kalu can
come to the realization that there is very little in the way both he
and insurgents think. He is a reflection of their leader, and they are
in the reflection of him! Right or wrong, different ideology, they both
legitimize violence.
When researching and reading of Mr. Kanu, I experienced three
emotions. The first was of a mischievous amusement because his head
looked like a Watermelon, that was so absolutely ginormous he would
probably need a mattress to serve as a pillow. I imagined that his
nickname as a child would be Mr. Bobblehead!
The second was an
anxious curiosity I felt about his home environment as a child. I
wondered what kind of toxic setting he grew up in that shaped this
misguided young man into the hate filled reprobate making the posts I
read. The third was a deep compassion I felt for him. I felt sad to see
another, amongst us, whose heart was so condemned, it perished in the
deep, dark, lonely dungeon of such bigotry and loathing. Where was his
family and his friends as he was growing into this dark, bigheaded nasty
creature?
I wanted to write on so many of the issues that had been raised by
Mr. Watermelon-Head (if I may call him Mr. Watermelon-Head that since
that seems so fitting) in his quest to actualize Biafra, however, there
were a plethora. Understanding and loving the South East and the people
of the South East the way I do, I feel a responsibility to dissect the
matters thoroughly. In order to do so, I will separate the main issues
into different articles; in sporadic weeks. Each will have a different
topic, but a different title using the theme THE
---------------------------- OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF BIAFRA
Considering the fact that the basis of Mr. Watermelon-Head’s (My
apologies for referring to him as that throughout the piece, I believe
that must be the starting point. The legality for a discussion on not
Self-Determination for Biafra claims priority in any such discussion.
I
will first examine the legal ramifications and possibility of a
declaration of political autonomy from Nigeria on the backdrop of the
United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This
declaration is essential and a starting point for any discussion on
Self-determination. This is where you see the lawyer/lecturer in me
tends to overpower the writer). It is not the first time the issue of
Self-Determination from Nigeria has come up. In the past, groups have
attempted to make use of Art 1(2) of the United Nations Charter as well
as other International Covenants to assert the third generation right
for political autonomy, however, the position of International legal
principles and set precedents established, in regards to
Self-determination is not as simple and straightforward as one would
assume! “…I’ll explain…”
Under Art 1, [ICCPR/ICESCR, Art 1(2), UN Charter; Art 20(1), ACHPR; Art 2, AL], it is provided that:
1. “All peoples have the right to self-determination…”
2.
“All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural
wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of
international economic co-operation, based on the principle of mutual
benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of
its own means of subsistence.”
3. “The State Parties to the
present Covenant, shall promote the realization of self-determination,
and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the
Charter of the United Nations.”
As clearly evidenced in the provisions of the United Nations Charter,
international law has always held the right to self-determination at a
high standing because its recognition is vital for the effective
guarantee and observance of individual human rights and the promotion
and strengthening of those rights. However, even with the importance
attached to this right, in the wake of decolonization, the right to
self-determination stands as one of the most debatable aspects of modern
international human rights law we have today.
The accepted view of self-determination is that it is a right
exercised primarily by people living under colonial regimes, which could
be exercised once and once only, to remove the colonial regime in
question. Essentially it was taken as referring to the right of a group
of people, normally of one distinct territory, to decide collectively
the manner in which they wish to be ruled or governed. However, even
though the right to self-determination for all peoples is an apparently
inalienable human right, it must be noted that it is not necessarily an
absolute right! Most notably, its application to ‘peoples’ living under
non-colonial domination is not so apparent.
It must be established that the right to self-determination is ‘a
group’ right but one of its main problems lies with its beneficiaries;
who are the ‘people’ to whom the rights ascribe? Due to the fact that
the right is only exercisable by ‘peoples’, the law has to be satisfied
that those who seek it meet the threshold of ‘peoples’ under
international set principles. The meaning to be attributed to the
concept of ‘peoples’ for the rights of people in international law in
this regard includes groups who enjoy a common historical tradition,
racial or ethnic identity, cultural homogeneity, linguistic unity,
religious or ideological affinity, territorial connection or common
economic life. The group as a whole must have the will to be identified
as ‘a people’ or the consciousness of being ‘a people.’ Given this
definition, it is presumed that Mr. Watermelon-Head’s definition of the
Biafran people may satisfy the definition of ‘peoples’ for the purpose
of securing their indigenous rights under the United Nations Convention…
If he has the complete and pure consensus of every single Nigerian
Igbo!
Conversely, in respect of self-determination of ‘peoples’, two other
vital aspects have to be distinguished; the internal and external aspect
of self-determination.
The right has an internal aspect, that is to
say, the rights of all peoples to pursue freely their economic, social
and cultural development without outside interference. In that respect,
there exists a link with the right of every citizen to take part in the
conduct of public affairs at any level, as referred to in Article 5 of
the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination. In consequence, governments are to represent the whole
population without distinction as to race, color, descent or national or
ethnic origin. On the other hand, the external aspect of
self-determination implies that, all peoples have the right to determine
freely their political status and their place in the international
community based upon the principle of equal rights and exemplified by
the liberation of peoples from colonialism and by the prohibition to
subject peoples to alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation.
Within the backdrop of establishing the internal and external aspect
of self-determination follows the issue of territorial integrity. The
main bone of contention for any group or peoples within a defined
national boundary that wish to declare their right to self-determination
is the fact that international law has developed within a framework of
respect for the territorial integrity of a state. Cohabiting with the
United Nations’ encouragement of self-determination is its very strict
practice of respect for the territorial integrity of a State, a policy
deeply against partial or total interference with the territorial
integrity of a State. Territorial integrity and respect, therefore, is
enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, Art 2. The General
Assembly, in Declaration 1514 on the Granting of Independence to
Colonial Countries and Peoples in 1960 even went as far as purporting to
exclude the exercise of self-determination by discernible groups: ‘Any
attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity
and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the
purpose and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.’
In a leading Canadian case with similar facts to the declaration that
Mr. Watermelon-Head may eventually wish to rely on, the court was very
clear on the position of United Nations Charter regarding the right to
self-determination of indigenous people within a defined state.
On
the question of whether international law principles recognize Quebecers
right to self-determination, which could legally effect the unilateral
secession of Quebec from Canada, the court concluded that; ‘Canada is a
sovereign and independent State conducting itself in compliance with the
principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. Thus, the
Quebecers had no right to secede’. In the judgment, the Supreme Court
had recognized the right of a people to self-determination and
acknowledged that much of the Quebec population satisfied the criteria
for determining the definition of a ‘people.’ However, the court then
distinguished between internal and external self-determination; the
former being the accepted political development of a State and the
latter could only be invoked unilaterally in extreme situations. The
Quebecers were accorded internal self-determination insofar as their
linguistic rights are recognized; they have a fair representation in
national legislative, executive and judicial bodies, and their culture
is not threatened.
The court received many submissions on behalf of
other indigenous Canadians who also argued for their own territory and
autonomy. But this point was not even addressed by the court because no
application of the principle of self-determination was found as
justified vis-à-vis Quebec and, therefore, no other indigenous group or
tribe could invoke that right.
But even with these set principles, there are instances where the
international law applies a different criterion in cases it considers
extreme. The scope of an extreme situation justifying external
self-determination was addressed in the opinion of the African
Commission of Human Rights in Katangese Peoples’ Congress V Zaire. It
was suggested that where a State denies a group participation in the
Government process and violates their fundamental rights, the
territorial integrity of the State may not be such a paramount
consideration.
Furthermore, other instances where support for the extension of the
principle of Self-determination to indigenous populations may be
inferred have been recorded. If Mr. Watermelon-Head’s grievance and
ambit falls within this argument, then he may have a case. One such
example was from the powerful separate opinion laid down in the Western
Sahara Case. The judge opined that; “It hardly seems necessary to make
more explicit the cardinal restraints which the legal right of
self-determination imposes… It is for the people to determine the
destiny of the territory and not for the territory to determine the
destiny of the people.” But even such a strong ‘obiter’ is not without
its ambiguity. It could be inferred from this that the ‘people’ must be
of a whole territory and hence the judgment conforms to the territorial
view of the United Nations. On the other hand, the use of the term
‘territory’ could be taken to mean that the land could be part of an
existing State. This still causes some problems for self-determination
with the colonial framework where questions of succession arise.
While unilateral secession is not specifically prohibited, it is
clear that international law does not specifically grant component parts
of sovereign states the legal right to secede unilaterally from their
parent state. Self-determination is clearly acceptable for divesting
States of colonial powers, but the problems arise when groups, not, in a
solo occupation of a given defined State territory choose to exercise
self-determination! Hoping Mr. Watermelon-Head is taking note…!
Although the policy of self-determination has had some notable
successes in the post-colonialist era; for example in Czechoslovakia
where the population voted to separate and become two States, the Czech
Republic, and Slovakia, international law tends to lean towards
territorial integrity in a clash with claims for ethnic, cultural and
religious self-determination.
As earlier stated, the right to self-determination as a group right
applies to the people of a State wholly and not severally. The people
that Mr. Watermelon-Head is referring to as Biafrans are the nationals
of Nigeria as a whole. And even though Nigeria is a decolonized State
that lacks cultural and ethnic homogeneity, the whole people of the
territory achieved independence through the communal exercise of
self-determination.
So, based on the set precedence of the International legal provision
that Mr. Watermelon-Head probably would need to seek to rely on, would
such a quest for political autonomy of Biafra from Nigeria succeed under
the United Nations Charter? Given the fact that it would be difficult
to argue that Biafra meets the threshold of a colonial people or
oppressed people or that they have been denied meaningful access to
government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social
development, any quest he may have for self-determination under the
United Nations Charter would be unlikely to succeed. International law
would expect any such agitation for self-determination to be sought
within the framework of Nigeria.
Now, let me briefly turn to Nigerian law. Based on Nigerian internal
law, Mr. Watermelon-Head’s quest is also unlikely to succeed. Provided
in the preamble to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria,1999 (as Amended), the entire people of Nigeria agreed that the
Country should be One Indivisible and Indissoluble Sovereign Nation. It
prescribes that;
“We the People of the Federal Republic of Nigeria: Having firmly and
solemnly resolved: TO LIVE in unity and harmony as one indivisible,
indissoluble, Sovereign Nation under God dedicated to the promotion of
inter-African solidarity, world peace, international co-operation and
understanding: AND TO PROVIDE for a Constitution for the purpose of
promoting the good government and welfare of all persons in our country
on the principles of Freedom, Equity and Justice, and for the purpose
of consolidating the Unity of our people: DO HEREBY MAKE, ENACT AND GIVE
TO OURSELVES THE following constitution…”
The preceding is a collective agreement by the Nigerian People and
for this principle of indivisibility and indissolubility to be
undermined by any part of Nigeria it will require the people of Nigeria
coming together to agree that a part of the nation has a right to what
that part considers as self-determination. The Constitution is the
Organic Law, governing the rights, duties, obligations, and privileges
of the people of Nigeria and its supremacy must at all times be
fundamentally observed. For any group of persons to seek to divide the
Nation under any guise would amount to a brazen attack on the
Constitution.
Mr. Watermelon-Head has got the law, both international and internal,
twisted! The second limb of the preamble to the Constitution makes
provision aimed at engendering peaceful coexistence and unity of
Nigeria. Perhaps, Mr. Watermelon-Head should be advised to concentrate
his efforts on engaging the leadership of Nigeria for… better leadership
rather than go on this ‘silly, billy, senseless, ‘Frolic of his own!”
It
is likely that the grievances Mr. Watermelon-Head has is hinged on the
failure of past political leaders to promote good governance and welfare
of all persons on the principles of Freedom, Equality, and Justice that
has heightened his agitation for the Biafran State, which threatens the
peace of the Nation.
I suggest he channels his energies in order to
bring better leadership in the places it is required. How about lifting
his posterior off that potato couch, hence where he disgorges his vile
venom in the comfort of this London station and comes to see what
peaceful and productive change he can bring to Nigeria? Eeehhh? How
about that for a suggestion Mr. Watermelom…? Instead of breaking the
law, calling for treason, committing conspiracy and expecting to b
hailed as a hero and a marty. *Sigh*
In a nation like Ethiopia, it was possible for Eritrea to exercise
her right to self-determination because the Ethiopian law has a liberal
provision that guarantees such right, unlike Nigeria where the
Constitution does not admit of the exercise of a right to
self-determination.
Therefore, if Mr. Watermelon-Head wants to declare political autonomy
from Nigeria in order to enforce the United Nations’ Declaration on
Rights of Indigenous Peoples for the self-determination of Biafra, he
must keep in mind that, in challenging the traditional anti-secessionist
United Nations’ stand, the present United Nations’ practice dictates
that only classic colonies, those Third-World nations under European
domination can exercise the right to self-determination without any
hitch. In light of this, rather than relying on international law and
the UN Convention or internal law to enforce his quest for
self-determination, an internal decision making framework, such as a
Constitutional Convention, National Conference or Constituent Assembly
may be a more informed, advisable and sensible way for Mr.
Watermelon-Head to present his argument for breaking away from Nigeria.
That is it for my legal analysis on the Legal Analysis on The
Self-Determination and Political Autonomy On Biafra Mr. Nnamdi Kanu is
trying to make noise on.
Next time, I will dissect another aspect of the wearisome issues that
have been thrown up by the Cantankerous undertaking that Mr.
Watermelon-Head, AKA, Mr. Nnamdi Kanu has so audaciously committed
himself to in his search for Biafra.
No comments:
Post a Comment