Emeka Emekesri, Solicitor for Indigenous People of Biafra, replies to Professor Ben Nwabueze on the Biafra self-determination struggle by legal method said:
“My attention has been drawn to a statement credited to Professor Ben Nwabueze SAN in the Sun Newspaper of 7th August 2016 with a caption “Biafra impossible through Court”.
Let me reproduce the relevant questions and answers:
Question: Going back to the Biafra agitation, there is on one hand a section of the agitators who prefer to toe the line of constitutional means, which you have just suggested to achieve their demands. According to the report, they have gone to court to seek intervention in their struggle for self-determination. There is yet another group which believes in violent protest to achieve the same goal. Which of these two options is more viable?
Answer: I don’t believe in violent method. I don’t think it will pay off. It has not paid off in the past. The secession of Biafra for three years didn’t bring any dividend to us. Agitation by means of court action I do not think also will achieve the purpose. If you go to court, what do you expect the court to decide in a case like this? Will the court tell you that you have the right to self-determination? What is self-determination? That is a very ambiguous term. If you go to court to say you want self-determination, let’s assume they grant you the right to self-determination, how do you enforce it? Due process or constitutional process is not really about going to court. There are internal and constitutional processes that can force a change.
Question: In what way? Could you define that constitutional process?
There are many of them. There are many processes that can be used to force the hands of government. Impeachment is one of them.
I make this reply in my capacity as the Solicitor for Indigenous People of Biafra with the conduct of the Suit No FHC/OW/CS/192/2013 between Biafra and Nigeria in the Federal High Court Owerri. I would have ignored this statement published by the Sun Newspaper but considering that it was alleged to have come from Professor Ben Nwabueze SAN, the Eminent Professor who taught us law in the University, who was reported to be the brain behind the 1979 Constitution of Nigeria imposed on us by the military junta, I have decided to reply with utmost respect to show my learned friend where he has erred. Of the two methods, violent method and legal method, he said that he did not believe in the violent method but again did not also believe that Biafra could be achieved through the court. This is the thinking of many Nigerian lawyers and politicians. Professor Nwabueze reasoned as follows:
“Agitation by means of court action I do not think also will achieve the purpose. If you go to court, what do you expect the court to decide in a case like this? Will the court tell you that you have the right to self-determination? What is self-determination? That is a very ambiguous term. If you go to court to say you want self-determination, let’s assume they grant you the right to self-determination, how do you enforce it?”
Let me now respond to Professor Nwabueze’s statement:
1. First of all, I must bring it to the attention of the whole world and to the Judges of the International Court of Justice that Professor Nwabueze of Nigeria has biased the mind of the Judge who must have read the Newspaper by now. His statement is prejudicial to my clients’ case.
His question, “If you go to the Court, what do you expect the Court to decide in a case like this?” shows the confusion that has enveloped the Nigerian Authorities over this case. The issues for determination are quite simple.
Let me reproduce the issues for determination in court:
(1) Whether the Indigenous People of Biafra who are the remnants that were not consumed in the Nigerian-Biafran war of 1967 – 1970 have the right to selfdetermination pursuant to Articles 19 – 25 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
(2) Whether the Claimants who identify themselves as Biafrans by indigenous identity are committing any offence by doing so contrary to any provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 or contrary to any provisions of the Criminal Code and whether it is a crime under any national or international law to mention the name of BIAFRA or for the remnants of the Indigenous People of Biafra who were not consumed by the war to maintain their indigenous identity as Biafrans with their native emblems and symbols as they do now even though they are Nigerians by citizenship and nationality laws; and if the answer is in the negative, whether the Defendants are justified to arrest, shoot and kill the children of the Claimants for identifying themselves as Biafrans by indigenous identity contrary to the rights of indigenous peoples as guaranteed by Articles 19 – 25 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
(3) Whether by the interpretation of Section 2 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 it is a crime for the Claimants and or the people of other ethnic nationalities held together in Nigeria against their will to exercise their right to self-determination by seeking for independence under the law as guaranteed by Articles 19 – 25 Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 and the United Nations Resolution 61/295 of 2007 known as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
(4) Whether it is lawful under the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 and under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 for the Defendants to hold the ethnic nationalities in Nigeria together by force against their will who now constitute the six geopolitical regions namely: South East, South South, South West, North Central, North East and North West, in a forced marriage akin to slavery contrary to their human and peoples’ rights of self-determination as there is no provision in the Nigerian law or international law that makes it a crime for a people to seek for freedom by the rule of law.