REFERENDUM, SELF DETERMINATION AND THE QUEST FOR BIAFRA

Referendum in Politics Defined:
A referendum is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to vote on a particular proposal. This may result in the adoption of a new law. In some countries it is synonymous with a plebiscite or a vote on a ballot question.
Some definitions of 'plebiscite' suggest that it is a type of vote to change the constitution or government of a country.
The legal basis for referendums can be divided into the three categories: international law, constitutional law and local autonomy law.
In a broader sense, however, elections are also a kind of referendum. The difference is that they are held to elect people while referendums are held to decide on issues.
Referendum laws are domestic; their status is below that of constitutional laws and may not be the legal basis for direct people power, unless so provided by existing Law. At best, referendum laws are legal regulations for implementation procedures.
First, the legal basis for referendums involving international issues such as a country's sovereignty, independence or the ceding of territory, sometimes also called "plebiscites," comes from international law. In such a case it becomes a supra-constitutional right. Sometimes a country has not even been established when this right is exercised. Certainly, in such situations, one does not need to rely on domestic legislation or incorporation of the right to referendums into a constitution.
The right to self-determination is a basic supra-legal human right. Its scope includes sovereignty, the freedom to decide on political structures and independence in terms of economic resources and so forth. Referendums are one of the concrete ways to express this right.

How Does Referendum Work?
Countries define it differently depending on the purpose for which it is meant and the existing legal framework.
[1] Australia for example, defines 'referendum' as a vote to change the constitution, and 'plebiscite' as a vote that does not affect the constitution.
[2] In Ireland, the vote to adopt its constitution was called a "plebiscite", but a subsequent vote to amend the constitution was called a 'referendum', and so is a poll of the electorate on a non-constitutional bill.
 [3] In Canada in the Quebec independence vote, the limits of referendum is defined by a federal law. The Quebec's Referendum Act was enacted by the Canadian National Assembly prior to the referendum of 1980.
The first referendum, held the same year, 1980, sought a mandate for the provincial government to negotiate "sovereignty-association" with the federal government of Canada. The vote was however decisively defeated by Quebecers in the province.
In the second referendum of 1995, also subject to the same1980 Referendum Act, the question put to vote was worded as follows:

"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"
The "Yes" votes lost by a margin which was less than the 1980 margin; yet it was a loss and the "No" votes retained Quebec province in Canada.
It must be noted that the Canadian Constitution provides for secession, which the Nigerian Constitution doesn't.
The agitation for the independence of Quebec province was led by a provincial political party - Parti Québécois, which also controlled the provincial government of Quebec.

[4] The Scottish Vote in United Kingdom: In the UK, there was no law providing for the separation of Scotland, or a referendum to ascertain Scottish opinion as to whether to secede or not. Yet once it was established that it is the popular wish of the Scottish people, as expressed by a majority of votes in the Scottish Parliament in the Holyrood area of Scottish capital city, Edinburgh; and in a bid to accord the Scots their right to self determination, the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government negotiated and arrived at an agreement termed " the Edinburgh Agreement," ratified on 15th October 2012 “to provide a clear legal basis for the holding of the Scottish independence referendum in the year 2014." The agreement was signed by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, on UK side; and the Scottish First Minister and Deputy First Minister, on the Scottish side.
An Order in Council was therefore proposed by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron and approved by the British Government on 12th February 2013, granting constitutional legitimacy to the referendum held on September 18, 2014. The Scottish vote ended with 53.30% rejection of independence, with only 44.70% "Yes" votes.
The Scottish National Party which controlled the provincial government of Scotland, based in Edinburgh, led the quest for Scottish independence.
[5]  California: The Quest for Self-Determination: There have been more than 200 unsuccessful proposals for the secession of California from USA, over the state’s 165-year history.
 For California to secede from USA, a stated percentage of Californian eligible voters supporting a petition for independence, puts the motion for independence on the State ballot. Thereafter an independence plebiscite would be needed to repeal Article III, Section 1 of the California Constitution which states that California is “an inseparable part of the U.S.” That done, a process to amend the US Constitution commences either by no.1 or no. 2 procedure, below.
(i). A member of the California federal delegation to US Congress would propose an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allowing the State of California to withdraw from the Union. The Amendment would have to be approved by 2/3 of both chambers of the Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate. If the Amendment passed, it would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered (to satisfy the "consent of the states" requirement in Texas v. White US Supreme Court judgement). It would need to be accepted by at least 38 of the 50 state legislatures to be adopted.
(ii) California could call for a convention of the states and the Amendment granting California its independence would have to be approved by 2/3 of the delegates to this convention. If it passed, the Amendment would be sent to the fifty state legislatures to be considered and 38 of the 50 states would have to approve the measure in order for it to be adopted.

[6] Referendum Supervised by United Nations
      In special circumstances as in Nigeria, where a dominant faction, using the coercive forces of State in brutalizing a defined group of people which is not necessarily an ethnic group, but meet in all respects, the "Remedial Rights Only" standards for separation; and is overwhelmingly agreed on independence; the UN Security Council can influence the government of such a country to agree to a UN-supervised referendum. This invariably happens where the State authorities, despite glaring justification for referendum,  refuses to verify the popularity of agitation for independence in a designated area.

In Nigeria of today, apart from street demonstrations which is a vital integral part of the process, there is no other evidence that the agitators for independence have meaningfully demanded referendum from UN and the power blocks in the UN Security Council. "Meaningfully" means sustained efforts in litigation, publicity, lobbying and diplomacy; not just a one-off  submission of petitions to UN bodies. Lobbyists, legal experts in international law and publicists must be permanently engaged to generate the kind of pressure, through world leaders, that can force a change of mind in the reluctant fundamentalist government of Nigeria, to allow agitators for independence  to self- determine their right to their political, social and economic affairs.

Some Examples of UN- supervised or conducted Referendum:

Namibia: In 1989 the UN, with the consent of  South Africa organized the referendum of independence of Namibia from its UN trustee, South Africa, after years of guerrilla warfare.
South Sudan:The referendum was called for by the UN & AU-induced 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), which ended more than 20 years of war. The Sudanese authorities were responsible for the referendum process.
East Timor: An independence referendum was held in East Timor on 30 August 1999. The referendum's origins lay with the request made by the President of Indonesia, Bacharuddin Jusuf Habibie, to the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on 27 January 1999, for the United Nations to hold a referendum, whereby the Indonesian province of East Timor would be given choice of either greater autonomy within Indonesia or independence.

THE QUEST FOR BIAFRA AND INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENTS
Beyond the state of nature in which every man was law unto himself, is the organized society which is regulated by laws. Even under the Divine Rights of Kings, which preceded constitutional democracies, monarchs still made laws to regulate society, the only difference being that the king varied the law as it pleased his whims and caprices. This still happens in such absolute monarchies as in Saudi Arabian Theocracy.
In constitutional democracies, the Constitution is the organic Law under which all other laws operate. Under the Constitution is Common Law - a body of laws as adopted and modified separately by the government, and in respect of Nigeria, the different states of the  federation and the federal government, subordinated to the various multi-lateral treaties the Nigerian state ratified and/or domesticated.
Thus every activity in any organized society is regulated by Laws.
In the five countries discussed above (Australia, Ireland, Canada, Scotland and USA), there are set out laws on how the people's elected representatives in government at regional and national levels, execute referendums within laws regulating the referendum in question.
In the case of Biafra, none of the agitators for Biafra is either a government; or has elected representatives in any group in government or in a political party. None of the prominent agitating groups is even a registered non-governmental organization (NGO). Thus whereas it is within the competence of the agitators and Nigerian Laws, to campaign for the right to self determination of Igbos, it is not within their ambit to enforce such right. The only option they have is by physical force which they do not have, which I reject and the world also does not accept.
In the five cases referred to above, regional politicians operating through regional parties or national parties, engineered their independence movements.
In Nigeria, by the implications of Sections 221 to 228 of the 1999 Constitution , no regional party can be registered. The only lawful option left for agitators for regional independence is therefore for agitating groups to maneuver themselves into control of existing political parties; or to endorse candidates in parties controlled by citizens of that area and who  have given firm undertakings to support the agitation for regional independence. That way they can influence the State Assemblies, State Houses, Representatives and Senators of the states they have mapped out as the territorial limits of the new nation, to support resolutions favorable to the movement.
AGITATOR'S BOYCOTT OF ELECTIONS IS AGITATION FOR BIAFRA IN DENIAL
Consequently, the present posture of agitators threatening that elections will not hold or if they hold in Anambra State or any of designated Biafraland, would be boycotted by the agitators unless a referendum takes place,  is therefore tantamount to AGITATION FOR BIAFRA IN DENIAL. It is anti-Biafra and could rightly be construed as an act of subversion against the movement.
 Instead of maneuvering to get get a Biafra sympathetic Governor with the movement's popularity in the area, the leaders are unknowingly denying themselves that right to elect a Biafra sympathetic Governor, which by the agitators' rated popularity is achievable. The agitators are instead indulging in such hare-brained activities as threatening public peace by disrupting campaigns in Anambra State and mustering crowds to obstruct economic activities and normal life in the rest of the area of the designated Biafra. Thus alienating the quest for Biafra from informed opinion in the designated Biafra territory.
Perhaps, but for the law suit in Washington DC instituted by families of 9 of the 270 pro-Biafra demonstrators extra-judicially murdered by the Security Agencies and one torture survivor from among the 370 terminally incapacitated by gunshot wounds at Anambra, Abia, Delta and Rivers States  between August 2015 and January 2017, hundreds more might have been massacred or terminally injured in the recent massive demonstrations in Ebonyi, Onitsha and Ekwuluobia.
The creation of Biafra would require enactment of a new national law for referendum to take place; and an amendment of the Nigerian Constitution which with the present mindset of the oligarchy, needs local, national  and international pressure to influence a change of mind of the people dominating the Nigerian affairs.
Rights agitators therefore need to woo the political, business and intellectual elite of the proposed Biafra and the rest of Nigeria to support the movement for the establishment of Biafra.
 The present threats posture of the agitators indeed frightens Biafra' s political, business and intellectual elite. One highly placed judicial officer once asked me how the elite can peacefully co-exist with the the agitators in the proposed Biafra. I merely counseled that since it would be no military regime, a democratic process would ensure sound leadership.
It is an accepted fact that no political movement can succeed without the cooperation of the elite. At the moment, Biafra agitators seem to have caused so much alienation from this critical elite in the South East by its boisterous mode of operation.
Overwhelming Percentage of Igbos Support Biafra: A recent opinion survey indicates that added to the natural conservatism of the political and business elite, the leadership of pro Biafra agitators have driven over 95% of Igbo political and business elite to accept enslavement and into open opposition to Biafra independence. This, the survey revealed, is in spite of close to 90% popularity of the Biafra independence quest among the ordinary Igbo man/woman on the street and Igbo intelligentsia. And this group constitute over 85% of the adult population of Igbo land.
South West, South south and North Central Understanding
Furthermore, to get a referendum Act passed in Nigeria, Biafra agitators  would need to woo the Southwest, the South south and the North Central zones whose votes  would be needed to get the referendum Act to be enacted by the National Assembly. Therefore nobody in any of these zones needs be denigrated. Unfortunately the agitators' leadership is indulging in the opposite of this, through radio broadcasts; thus squandering vital goodwill. No man is an island.
PRO BIAFRA AGITATORS SEEM TO HAVE REACHED THE POINT OF DIMINISHING RETURNS
The leadership of the pro Biafra Agitators therefore seems to have over-reached themselves and since August 2017 appears to be destroying and dismantling all the good job they have done in recent past.
It is therefore time for this leadership which is full of zest and energy, to tone down rhetorics and allow those who have capability to win friends, locally, nationally and internationally, take over the winning of sympathy for the Igbo man's tragedy in Nigeria.
Enormous sympathy is needed nationally and internationally, if Biafra would ever be. Sympathy can only be won when friends understand the tragedy of the oppressed.
On the international scene, submitting papers to UN, AU, EU, U.S. etc is good, but the memory of those papers among the receivers transpires the day it was submitted. Regular follow-ups are required to sustain momentum.
International opinion can only be won by permanently sustained effort by professionals. Very little of this effort appears on ground anywhere in the world.
Perhaps the only of such effort trending, is that of Bruce Fein and W. Bruce DelValle, Washington Attorneys in a Civil Claims suit no. 1.:17-cv-01033 and consequent publicity that follows it.
Suits in various capitals of the world, particularly exhibiting how much genocide was, and is being executed by Nigeria on the Igbo. The publicity following such suits will enable appointed professional lobbyists to win more sympathizers for the tragedy of the Igbo in Nigeria; and obviously help to accelerate the Igbo quest for self determination.
It was James Madison, Jr. (1751 – 1836) political theorist, American statesman, fourth President of the United States (1809–17) who was hailed as the "Father of the Constitution" for his pivotal role in drafting and promoting the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights who said and I quote:

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

It is time for the leadership of pro Biafra agitators to go to school on successful agitation for independence and jettison the failed model which they seem to be imitating without thought.

Yes it is germane as Thomas Jefferson, an American Founding Father who was the principal author of American Declaration of Independence; and who later served as the third President of the United States from 1801 to 1809, declared:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
But the Igbos have watered the tree of liberty with enough blood - 30,000 in pre-civil war genocide, 3.5 million in the genocidal Civil War, several thousands in several riots in the North and massacres in Nigeria from 1970 to date; and the recent killing of 270 unarmed pro Biafra demonstrators by Nigerian Security Agencies

It is time to use our brains. Igbo children excel in first positions in examinations to Unity Unity Schools, WASSCE (WAEC), UTME (JAMB) and degree exams in Nigeria and all over the world - evidence that God has been generous inendowing the Igbo with human capital.

LET US USE OUR BRAINS; NOT OUR BRAWN, LIKE JIHADISTS.

CHUKWUEMEKA I. ONYESOH (PRINCE)
30th August, 2017.
emekaonyesoh.blogspot.com.ng