AGITATION FOR THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION IS LAWFUL & PROTEST AGAINST ENSLAVEMENT

AGITATION FOR THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION IS LAWFUL & PROTEST AGAINST ENSLAVEMENT

Sub-Theme:This nation cannot survive half slave and half free - Abraham Lincoln.

Separatism or the advocacy or practice of separation of a certain group of people from a larger body on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or gender is in both Nigerian and international law inherent and inalienable right of the peoples of Nigeria.

Self Determination Provisions in the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN ICCPR)
The United Nations General Assembly on 16th Dec. 1966,  in a bid to minimize the abridgment of minority rights by over-bearing majorities in member states , adopted the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which came into force on 23rd March 1976. Nigeria ratified this Covenant on 29th July, 1993.
The first article of ICCPR emphasizes the premium the UN places on peoples’ right to self determination in unions in member states.
Part I, Article 1 provides that “All peoples have the right of self-determination.” And “By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Part II, Article 2 (1) binds “Each State party to the Covenant to undertake to respect and ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights 
recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind . . . .“ Article 2 (2) further binds
all parties to the Covenant, to domesticate the provisions of the Covenant into their national laws and
“adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in this
Covenant.” Article 2 (3) compels each state party to undertaking to ensure remedy for its citizens
whose rights under this Covenant have been violated or denied.”

Self Determination Provisions in the African Charter on Human and Political Rights (ACHPR)
Finding the UN ICCPR as a very critical document for stabilizing unions in Federations, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), now African Union (AU), on 27th June 1981, in its Summit meeting in Banjul, Gambia, adopted its on charter to regulate civil and political rights in the African continent. This is what is now known as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) (also called Banjul Charter). Article 20 of the Charter is centered on the Right to Self Determination of constituents of member states.
 (1)”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.”
(2)”Colonized or oppressed peoples shall have the right to free themselves from the bonds of 

domination by resorting to any means recognized by the international community.”
(3)”All peoples shall have the right to the assistance of the State Parties to the present Charter in their liberation struggle against foreign domination, be it political, economic or cultural.”
The ACHR came into effect in all AU member nations on 21st October 1986 when over 50% of AU member states had ratified it. Nigeria signed the charter on 31st August 1982, ratified it on 22nd June 1983 and deposited it with the African Commission on Human Rights on 22nd July 1983. The African Human Rights Commission headquartered in Banjul, Gambia, regulates the ACHR and serves as a court on violations of its provisions by member States.

Domestication of ACHPR by Nigeria:
Nigeria further domesticated ACHR as its own municipal law by its enactment of the African Charter on Human and peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 1983 (now Cap. 10 Laws of the
Federation of Nigeria, 1990).
Separatism or aspiration for separation from a Nigeria is therefore within the laws of UN, AU
and Nigeria.

Salutary Effect of Provision for the Right to Self-Determination:
The essence of entrenching the right to self-determination in the laws of federations is not necessarily to cause disintegration. The provision at the end of the day, helps in fostering more genuine unity and strengthens longer lasting and peaceful polity than unity forced on an entity by laws which pay no regard to the feelings and reactions of the divergent peoples of a federation.
Entrenching the right to self determination in the laws of any federation and the option of its assertion, therefore helps to curb the excessive arrogance of the majority (like the oligarchy in Nigeria) by ensuring equality of all before the Law.  It thus ensures that minority rights are protected.
Equality and mutual respect between the peoples comprising it, are two inherent principles of
federation, in the absence of which there is acrimony and alienation, as is prevalent in 201 Nigeria.
Assertion of the right to self determination therefore compels mutual respect in federations between
minorities and the majority groups. The absence of that right results in enslavement of minorities and
consequent alienation.
The resolution of two Separatist agitations in Canada and UK, confirm that the exercise of the right to self determination, does not necessarily lead to secession.
 It is this right that entitled the French Roman Catholic Canadians of Quebec province who constitute only 23.07% (8.10 million) of Canada’s 35.1 million (2014) to twice freely test in referenda (1980 & 1995) their wish to separate or remain with the rest of English-speaking CanadianProtestant Pentecostals. By  Official Languages Act (1969), Canada adopted English and French as official languages of Canada.  The 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights was the country's first federal law to protect human rights and fundamental freedom. Considered groundbreaking at the time, it was eventually superseded by the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These Acts among other things,
further helped to reassure protection for minorities' rights.  It is worthy of note that Mr. Joseph
Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, a Quebecer and  the 15th Prime Minister of Canada  (1968
-1979 & 1980-1984) and 5th of eleven  Quebecers who have been Prime ministers, was in office
during the 1980 referendum.  Quebecers found no reason to leave Canada and therefore chose to remain. Rejection of secession was again repeated in the 1995 referendum.

The Scottish Independence referendum of Sept. 18, 2014 for the Scots, who make up only 8.32% of the UK population, is one of the most patent demonstrations of a liberal world’s assertion that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” (United Nations Declaration of Human Rights - UDHR Article 1) and of UK's compliance with Article1 of United Nations International Convention on Civil and Political Rights ( UN ICCPR): “All People have the right of Self Determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status . . .”
The British Prime Minister took time after the vote to explain that Britain had no legal framework for
 the referendum but on account of the human rights implications of the Scottish agitation, he had to
introduce an Order-in-Council which was supported by all political parties, and that enabled the
referendum.  London and Scottish Parliaments ratified the Order-in-Council, thereby setting up the
vote. The government of United Kingdom set up an all-party committee and ensured that most Scottish grounds for separation were ameliorated or removed. On September 18, 2014, the Scottish Nation Party, the promoters of Scottish separatism, consequently lost the vote.

IPOB and MASSOB Agitation is Lawful 
IPOB and  MASSOB are therefore breaking no laws by agitating for separation. Indeed, they are following international and Nigerian laws by peacefully expressing their dissatisfaction with failing Nigeria and their separatist wish. IPOB and MASSOB are doing what regional politicians did in
Quebec and Scotland, and what Catalonian politicians are presently doing in Spain. Most Nigerian
politicians, perhaps, out of fear of exclusion from dipping in the honey pot, invariably do not openly
identify with their people's aspiration. Besides, Nigerian electoral Act forbids registration of regional
parties whose sole purpose, like in Scotland, Quebec in Canada and Catalonia of Spain, would be
regional autonomy  or separation.

Rightful Reaction of the Federal Government of Nigeria to Separatist Agitation:
It is therefore the binding duty of the National  Assembly to enact a Bill authorizing Referendum in any area that might wish to exercise its right to self determination. Such enactment must provide that it is a vote in the State Assembly/Assemblies covering the area under separatist agitation that would
activate a referendum; and not the National Assembly any more.  A specified percentage majority vote in such State Assembly/Assemblies of the separatist area/areas   Must be required to activate
referendum. If the bill passes the area's legislative houses, then referendum must be conducted to
ascertain the people's definite preference.

Shooting Separatist Agitators is an International Crime Against Humanity:
Shooting agitators for separatism whilst demonstrating peacefully or praying for their aspiration, is therefore an international crime against humanity for which the Federal Government of Nigeria must
be held accountable to the International Criminal Court, and to other UN Commissions/Committees under protocols of other UN charters/ covenants; to the African Commission on Human Rights; and courts of various UN members under varying protocols of their municipal laws.
Nigeria's Indivisibility Bogey
Nigeria cannot claim indivisibility after allowing Bakassi to be excised from it and awarded to
Cameroon for the the assistance it gave to Nigeria during the war. Not even governments are allowed
in international law to approbate and reprobate. "Quod approbo non reprobo" (that which I approve, I
cannot disapprove).

The Supreme Courtof Nigeria Ruling on ACHPR (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 1983
(now Cap. 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990).
The Supreme Court of Nigeria put to rest the issue of superiority of international treaties ratified by
Nigeria over national/municipal laws. In Appeal no. 44/1997, between General Sani Abacha,
Attorney-General of the Federation, State Security, Inspector-General of Police (appellants) versus
late indomitable Civl Rights Crusader, Chief Gani Fawehinmi (respondents) determined on Friday, 28th April 2000, in the lead judgement delivered by Hon. Justice Michael Ekundayo Ogundare. J.S.C, that ACHPR being a multi-lateral treaty, and having been enacted into law by the National Assembly, and incorporated into Nigeria's municipal (i.e. domestic) law by the African Charter on
Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 1983, now Cap. 10 Laws of the
Federation of Nigeria 1990, became binding and our Courts are bound to give effect to it like all other
laws falling within the Judicial power of the Courts. By Cap. 10, the African Charter is therefore 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. The Supreme Court further determined that Cap. 10 being a statute with international flavour that whenever there is a conflict between it and another
statute, its provisions will prevail over those of that of other statute for the reason that it is presumed
that the legislature does not intend to breach an international obligation and that to this extent the Charter possesses "a greater vigour and strength" than any other domestic statute except the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which is Nigeria's grand nun.

President Buhari's Declaration that he will not Tolerate Biafran Agitators:
The reaction of President Muhammad Buhari on issues of Self Determination underlines the
enslavement of our people in Nigeria.
Late in February 2016 in Qatar in answer to a question by a well-informed Martine Dennis in Al
Jazeera television studios on why Nigerian troops were massacring Biafran agitators for self
determination, President Buhari did not bother to deny the massacre of unarmed protesters, but appeared to have justified the killings.
"At least two millions Nigerians were killed in the Biafra war. And for somebody to wake up maybe they weren’t born. Looking for Biafra after two millions people were killed, they are joking with the 
security and Nigeria won’t tolerate Biafra,” declared President Buhari who appeared very angry that he had to answer questions on Biafrans being slaughtered  by his security agencies.
The ordinary dictionary definition of the word "tolerate" is  "allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference."
For example "a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent" as expressed by President Buhari. Common
synonyms of the word "tolerate": allow, permit, condone, accept, swallow, countenance.
By uttering those words in the circumstance, the President of Nigeria outrightly asserted Nigeria's denial of Biafran agitators' fundamental rights to life, dignity of human person, personal liberty,
freedom of thought, of conscience, of expression, of peaceful assembly and association, of
movement; and from discrimination, all of which are guaranteed in Chapter IV of the Nigerian
Constitution; and further guaranteed by provisions in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN UDHR), the UN International  Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN ICCPR) and  the African Charter on Human and Political Rights (ACHPR), all of which are ratified and domesticated
by Nigeria. Any human denied all of the above rights is no more a normal human, but a slave.

President Buhari Declares Support for Western Sahara and Palestine Rights to Self 
Determination:
President Buhari seemed to have rubbed in the enslavement  of Nigerians to the oligarchy, when  the
same time he denied Nigerians' right to Self Determination and appeared to have endorsed the
massacre of self determination agitators by Nigerian security agencies, he openly declared support for
the right to Self Determination of two Arab Moslem  self determination agitators of Western Sahara and of Palestine. What is good for the goose is perhaps not good for the gander, because perhaps, the gander is sub-human.

Self Determination Agitation is the only Meaningful Peaceful Way out of Enslavement:
IPOB and MASSOB self determination agitation,  might at the end of the day be the only meaningful challenge to the arrogance of the oligarchy that has enslaved both Yoruba, Igbo Ijaw, Efik, the Middle Belt and all other minorities, north or south of Nigeria. Equality and mutual respect emerges from
separatist advocacy if well and systematically engineered.
  As Rev.Martin Luther King learnt in the U.S. Civil rights agitation  and expressed in his biography:
 "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it 
must be demanded by the oppressed."
And Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), one of the founding thinkers of USA, author, publisher,
inventor, scientist who in one of famous quotes prepared the ground for Rev. King's premise for liberation.
Rebellion against tyranny is obedience to God.

IPOB and MASSOB are demanding freedom for all enslaved people of Nigeria. Some may argue that we are not enslaved! The answers to and opinions on following everyday incidents in Nigeria would resolve the issue whether Nigeria is a free nation under the Rule of Law or, as it obvious, crawling
into medieval feudalism in slavery and enslavement.

Evidences of Enslavement:
Cattle Fulani Herdsmen Militancy:
 Over 400 killed and 7000 driven out of their ancestral homes into unkept refugee camps recently in Agatu in Benue State? Agatu Local Government Area is barely 40 kilometers from South-East northern most border, Obollo Afor, in Nsukka area. What about recent killings at Abbi Community, Nsukka, Enugu State among other killings and rapes all over the South-East,  Anioma in Delta State, the rest of South-South and South-West zones. Plateau, Nassarawa, Taraba, Kwara and Kogi States and Southern Kaduna are occupied territories and have lost their voices of protest in subjugation.

 Nigeria is not a major Cattle breeding nation of the world and that  according to 1990/92 Nigerian
Livestock Resources (RIM) Survey estimates, Nigeria had less than 13.90 million cattle  whereas
major cattle breeding countries of the world, by 2009 figures have as high as 285 million cattle in India; 187,087,000 in Brazil; China 139,721,000; U.S.A. 96,669,000; EU 87,650,000,Argentina
51,062,000; Pakistan 38,300,000; Australia 29,202,000; Mexico  26,489,000.
In all of the above countries, laws prohibit wandering of cattle which are restricted to ranches in the interest of public safety, health and economics of cattle breeding.
Nigeria is one of the very few countries in the world where cattle and herdsmen contest freedom of movement and property ownership with citizens under Fulani culture of  Pastorialism which is not only primitive, outmoded & uncivilized but also uneconomic; and has been long discarded by the civilized and productive world! A recent announcement by the Minister of Agriculture, Dr. Audu Ogbeh, that killings, abductions, rapes and sacking of communities by Fulani herdsmen would have to wait until the Federal government has imported grass seeds from Brazil and grown enough
enhanced grass for cattle. Dr. Ogbeh need be reminded that Section 14-((2)(b) of the Constitution of
Nigeria clearly states that  "the security and welfare of the people (not cattle) shall be the primary 
purpose of government;" and that it is armed Fulani militants masquerading under cover as herdsmen
who commit the havoc and need to be separated f  from the kafirs (unbelievers, in the own opinion)  who they wantonly attack.                                            

Kidnap, Rape, Confinement and Forced religious conversion of under-age Girls and Women:
 What about Ese Oruru's abduction from Bayelsa State to Kano State and forceful conversion to a religious faith she and neither of her parents have ever identified with? It is now known that the kidnap and forceful conversion of girls-children  and even adult women, is a common phenomenon  in the twelve Northern Sharia States of Nigeria. The Nigerian Police in those northern States has confessed  helplessness and loss of all the powers conferred on it by the Constitution and the Police Act. It is  instead subordinated to the assumed influence/powers (not conferred on them by the
Constitution of Nigeria)  of the Emirs and the Sharia/Emirate Councils/Hisbah Religious Police, who
invariably boast to the parents of kidnapped victims that their kidnap and forceful conversion/marriage of victims are irreversible by any State authority under The Nigerian Constitution, except them, the usurpers of citizens' rights. Victims have been kept incommunicado from families in some cases for several years before forced marriages. One needs imagine that the victim is one's daughter, grand-daughter or relative to appreciate the trauma affected Nigerian citizens are commonly subjected in these affected states of the North.
What syndrome compels such inhumanity against minors, and even adults, can be best explained by the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity!
Does anyone think that if that process is reversed and there is a kidnap and forceful conversion from Kano to Yenegoa, that this country would be as cool as it is for two weeks, not to think of  months and years, in some respects. The reaction of triumphalism by the feudal overlords of these Sharia
States to kidnap and forceful conversion/ marriage of femal minors puts a serious question mark to
the seriousness of fundamentalist Islam-dominated Federal bureaucracy in finding the Chibok girls.
Perhaps as the nation mourns its humiliation in the  Chibok saga, Nigeria's feudalist overlords celebrate their triumph behind porous veils. The  Bring-Back-our-Girls frenzy engendered by the outrage of the 279 girls abducted from Government Secondary School, Chibok, Borno State on 6th May 2014, might as well be comic melodrama.

 What about Miss Charity (Aisha) Uzoechina, 24-year-old daughter of Pastor Uzoechina of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, RCCG, who in 2013 was kidnapped from Federal Polytechnic, Bida, Niger State, and today is one of the harem women of the Etsu Nupe, in Niger State, having under influence, renounced her family and faith?

Conspiracy of Silence:
What gives the Hausa-Fulani, a right to roam Nigeria, killing indigenes of the Middle Belt and Southern Nigeria in their ancestral homes, and boldly take over ancestral lands, the same time the Hausa-Fulani drive other Nigerians away from their Northwest and North-East home lands with religious intolerance, oral and physical violence, which acts of impunity are now common place, since the Federal Government Security Agencies, by acts of omission and commission, openly endorse these above-the-Law privileges?
If Nigeria is not a slave camp for people outside the oligarchy, can someone explain why State Governors and Houses of Assemblies of the States ravaged by Cattle Fulani militants are unable to prohibit movement of cattle on hoof; and limit their movement to rail and/or motorized transportation by enactment of State Laws since the Nigerian Constitution empowers States to regulate markets and
livestock movement under Commerce and Agriculture?
The National Assembly (NASS) is also complicit by its uncommon silence over this notorious saga.
Representatives of the enslaved in the National Assembly, have abandoned their constituents and kept mum, perhaps in the interest of the Slavers. NASS is also complicit  by its deafening silence on cattle Fulani herds men's indiscriminate violations of citizen's fundamental rights.
Prisoners have rights regulated by Law but Slaves have no rights except as arbitrarily granted by their masters.

Conclusion:
The Igbo have a saying. Oru full ka eji mbazu eni ibe ya malu na etua ka ogadi mbosi nke ya (Literally meaning - a slave who witnesses the burial of a slave with  traditionally forbidden spear, must note that his own burial, whenever it will be, will take the same forbidden pattern.

"This nation cannot survive half slave and half free,"  declared Abraham Lincoln years before he went to war as U.S. 16th President (1861-65) to liberate all Slaves in the United States.

May God Help us!

Emeka Onyesoh

President, Forum for National Ethos and Values, Enugu.
17th March 2016.
                                                                                 

THE  DEMAND BY NIGERIANS FOR THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION IS LAWFUL .

Separatism or the advocacy or practice of separation of a certain group of people from a larger body on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or gender is in both Nigerian and international law inherent and inalienable right of the peoples of Nigeria.

The United Nations General Assembly on 16th Dec. 1966,  in a bid the minimize the abridgment of minority rights by over-bearing majorities in member states , adopted the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which came into force on 23rd March 1976. Nigeria ratified this Covenant on 29th July, 1993.
The first article of ICCPR emphasizes the premium the UN places on peoples’ right to self determination in unions in member states.
Part I, Article 1 provides that “All peoples have the right of self-determination.” And “By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Part II, Article 2 (1) binds “Each State party to the Covenant to undertake to respect and ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind . . . .“ Article 2 (2) further binds all parties to the Covenant, to domesticate the provisions of the Covenant into their national laws and “adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in this Covenant.” Article 2 (3) compels each state party to undertakings to ensure remedy for its citizens whose rights under this Covenant have been violated or denied.”
Finding the UN ICCPR as a very critical document for stabilizing unions in Federations, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), now African Union (AU), on 27th June 1981, in its Summit meeting in Banjul, Gambia, adopted its on charter to regulate civil and political rights in the continent. This is what is now known as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) (also called Banjul Charter). Article 20 of the Charter is centered on the Right to Self Determination of constituents of member states.
 (1)”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.”
(2)”Colonized or oppressed peoples shall have the right to free themselves from the bonds of domination by resorting to any means recognized by the international community.”
(3)”All peoples shall have the right to the assistance of the State Parties to the present Charter in their liberation struggle against foreign domination, be it political, economic or cultural.”
The ACHR came into effect in all AU member nations on 21st October 1986 when over 50% of AU member states had ratified it. Nigeria signed the charter on 31st August 1982, ratified it on 22nd June 1983 and deposited it with the African Commission on Human Rights on 22nd July 1983. The African Human Rights Commission headquartered in Banjul, Gambia, regulates the ACHR and serves as a court on violations of its provisions by member States.
Nigeria further domesticated ACHR as its own municipal law by its enactment of African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Chapter A 9 (Chapter 10 LFN1990) (No.2 of 1983) 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.
Separatism or aspiration for separation from  political entity is therefore within the laws of UN, AU and Nigeria.
Salutary Effect of the Provision For Right to Self-Determination:
The essence of entrenching the right to self-determination in the laws of federations is not necessarily to cause disintegration. The provision at the end of the day, helps in fostering genuine unity and strengthens longer lasting and peaceful unity than unity forced on the entity by laws which pay no regard to the feelings and reactions of the divergent peoples of the federation.
Assertion of the right to self determination provision therefore humbles the excessive arrogance of the majority by ensuring equality of all before the Law and ensures that minority rights are protected.
Equality and mutual respect between the peoples comprising it, are two inherent principles of federation, the absence of which there is acrimony and alienation. Assertion of the right to self determination therefore compels mutual respect in federations between minorities and the majority groups. The absence of that right results in enslavement of minorities.
Equality and Mutual Respect between the federating people's have been identified by all political thoughts as two of the inherent principles of all successful federations.

The resolution of two Separatism agitation in Canada and UK, confirm that the exercise of the right to self determination, does not necessarily lead to secession.
 It is this right that entitled the French Roman Catholic Canadians of Quebec province who constitute only 23.07% (8.10 million) of Canada’s 35.1 million (2014) to twice freely test in referenda (1980 & 1995) their wish to separate or remain with the rest of English-speaking CanadianProtestant Pentecostals. By  Official Languages Act (1969), Canada adopted English and French as official languages of Canada.  The 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights was the country's first federal law to protect human rights and fundamental freedom. Considered groundbreaking at the time, it was eventually superseded by the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These Acts among other things also guaranteed minority rights.  It is worthy of note that Mr. Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, a Quebecer and  the 15th Prime Minister of Canada  (1968 -1979 & 1980-1984) and 5th of eleven  Quebecers who have been Prime ministers, was in office during the 1980 referendum.  Quebecers found no reason to leave Canada and therefore chose to remain. Rejection of secession was again repeated in the 1995 referendum.

The Scottish Independence Referendum of Sept. 18, 2014 for the Scots, who make up only 8.32% of the UK population, is one of the most patent demonstrations of a liberal world’s assertion that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” (United Nations Declaration of Human Rights - UDHR Article 1) and of UK's compliance with Article1 of United Nations International Convention on Civil and Political Rights ( UN ICCPR): “All People have the right of Self Determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status . . .”
The British Prime Minister explained that Britain had no legal framework for referendum but on account of the human rights implications of the Scottish agitation, he had to introduce an Order-in-Council which was supported by all political parties, to enable that referendum take place .  London and Scottish Parliaments ratified the the Order-in-Council, thereby setting up the vote. The government of United Kingdom set up an all-party committee and ensured that most Scottish grounds for separation were ameliorated or removed. On September 18, 2014, The Scottish Nation Party, the promoters of Scottish separatism, consequently lost the vote.
Consequently, nearer home,  MASSOB and IPOB are breaking no laws in agitating for separation. Indeed, they are following international and Nigerian laws by peacefully expressing their dissatisfaction with Nigeria and their separatist wish. IPOB and MASSOB are doing what regional politicians did in Quebec and Scotland, and what Catalonian politicians are doing in Spain,  since most Nigerian politicians, now out of fear of exclusion from dipping in the honey pot, do not wish to be identified with their people's aspiration, which the almighty Federal government might consider hostile.
It is the binding duty of the governments at the centre and in the states to ascertain whether it is the wish of the area the agitators are claiming to represent, by enacting a bill for referendum. If the bill passes in the area's legislative houses, then referendum must be conducted to ascertain the people's definite wish.
Shooting agitators for separatism whilst they are demonstrating peacefully or praying for their separateness is an international crime for which the Federal Government of Nigeria need to answer in the International Criminal Court and under various protocols of other UN charters/ covenants, African Commission on Human Rights, EU and municipal laws of various UN member states
Nigeria cannot claim indivisibility after allowing Bakassi to be excised from it and awarded to Cameroon for the the assistance it gave to Nigeria during the war. Not even governments are allowed in international law to approbate and reprobate. "Quod approbo non reprobo" (that which I approve, I cannot disapprove).
IPOB and MASSOB activities in this respect,  might at the end of the day be the only meaningful challenge to the arrogance of the oligarchy that has enslaved both Yoruba, Igbo Ijaw, Efik, the Middle Belt and all the northern minorities. Equality and mutual respect emerges from separatist advocacy if we'll and systematically engineered.
  As Rev.Martin Luther King learnt in the U.S. Civil rights agitation  and expressed in his biography:
 "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."

IPOB and MASSOB are demanding freedom for all enslaved people of Nigeria. Some may argue, We are not enslaved! But what about 300 killed and 7000 driven out of their ancestral homes into unkept refugee camps recently in Agatu in Benue State? What about Ese abduction from Bayelsa to Kano and forceful conversion to a religious faith she and neither of her parents have never identified with? What syndrome can compel such inhuman act against an infant?
Do you think that if that process is reversed and there is a kidnap from Kano to Yenegoa that this country would be as cool as it is for SEVEN GOOD MONTHS?
 What about Miss Charity (Aisha) Uzoechina, 24-year-old daughter of Pastor Uzoechina with the Redeemed Christian Church of God, RCCG, who was kidnapped from Federal Polytechnic, Bida, Niger State, and today is one of the harem women of the Etsu Nupe, in Niger State, having under influence, renounced her family and faith?

May God Help us!

Emeka Onyesoh

President, Forum for National Ethos and Values, Enugu.
3rd March 2016.
                                                                                 

DEMONSTRATION BY IGBO YOUTHS IS IN ACCORD WITH UN COVENANT & ACHPR AND NIGERIAN CONSTITUTION

  Demonstrations by Igbo youths constitute very legitimate demand for the Right to Self Determination provided for and guaranteed by UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN ICCPR) Part One Article 1(1).

 All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Nigeria ratified and deposited this Covenant with UN on 29th July 1993 and according to Article 1(3) of the Covenant, is bound to protect and defend the Right to Self Determination of all ethnic nationalities of Nigeria.

Article 1(3) The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

The African Union (AU) version of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted  in a Summit of African Heads of State of the AU in Nairobi, Kenya on 28th June 1981 as the African Charter on Human and Political Rights (ACHPR), otherwise referred to as Banjul Charter. It was first ratified on 21st October 1981 in Mali and came into force on 21st October 1986. Articles 19 and 20 of the ACHPR clearly states the right to equality, elimination of domination, the right to existence and self-determination of the peoples of the country of Africa in very blatant terms.

ARTICLE 19
All peoples shall be equal; they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another.

ARTICLE 20
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.
Colonized or oppressed peoples shall have the right to free themselves from the bonds of domination by resorting to any means recognized by the international community.
All peoples shall have the right to the assistance of the State Parties to the present Charter in their liberation struggle against foreign domination, be it political, economic or cultural.

On 31st August 1982 Nigeria signed the ACHPR; ratified it on 22nd June 1983 and deposited its ratification with AU headquarters in Addis Ababa on 22nd July 1983.

Conscious of the full implications of Articles 19 and 20 of ACHPR  and Article 1(1) & (3) of UN ICCPR, on Right to Self Determination of the over 250 ethnic nationalities of Nigeria, the oligarchy manipulating power in Nigeria did what it knows best in doing - Jihad of Deception. It enacted a benign Act claiming to have domesticated ACHPR by merely enacting  the African Charter on Human and People's Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Chapter A9, (Chapter 10 LFN 1990)(No 2 of 1983) Laws of the FederationNigeria 1990.
The ACHPR Act is a ruse, not intended to enforce any of the ACHPR provisions not entrenched in the Nigerian Constitution.
Out of morbid fear that the over 250 million ethnic nationalities whom the oligarchs oppress and insult daily would exercise their self determination rights, no effort whatsoever has been made by the goalers of Nigeria to entrench in Nigeria's Constitution the Right to Self Determination provision in
the UN ICCPR Part One Article 1(1).

In 1999 when the oligarchy's Army Generals decided to execute another chicanery, branded 'Transition to Civil Rule' they concocted a Prisoner-of-War Ordinance, otherwise known as the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in which Geneva Convention  for the entrapped prisoners, was deliberately omitted. It was faked as having emanated and ratified by Nigerians even though it was a decree signed by one the oligarchy's Generals.

Provisions were made in Chapter IV of that Constitution in accordance with UN ICCPR and ACHPR for fundamental rights to Life, Respect for Dignity of the Human Person, Personal Liberty, Fair Hearing, Privacy of Citizens and Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion,  Freedoms of Expression, of Assembly and Association with other Persons and of Movement and Residence. The
oligarchs knew they could easily violate these provisions as custodians of the rights of the people,
either by openly violating them or by benign negligence, like it does  with Cattle -Fulani herdsmen  who daily kill, maim, rape and violate property rights by forcefully occupying people's homes and farms and are never arrested or arraigned.

For the Right to Self Determination, which is the ultimate glue that bonds federations by bonding them through engendering equality and mutual respect between federating units, the oligarchy not only made sure it was not entrenched in the unitary Constitution of the Federation they concocted; but also foreclosed by that  Right to Self Determination of over 250 nations that make up Nigeria. They introduced an article unknown to federating concept by proscribing the Right to Self Determination by Article 2(1) of the 1999 Constitution. There was no such provision in the 1960/63 Constitution negotiated in six Conferences by the founding wise men of Nigeria, because  they intelligently and patriotically accepted Nigeria's diversity and hoped to build a union by accepting the
inherent principles of federating.

Article 2. (1) Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

No Union created by God or man is indeterminable. Life ends in death. There is provision for divorce in marriage under most,if not all laws. In business, incorporated companies have provisions for dissolution. The existence of this provision for dissolution compels parties to work hard on strengthening their union thereby engendering mutual respect.

The insertion of Article 2(1) in the Nigerian Constitution therefore offends the stipulations and spirit of UN ICCPR and AU's ACHPR.
Union of human beings is not by force; only Cattle and other mammals, not humans can be forcefully
united.

Article 2(1) is therefore a real instrument of enslavement of the rest of Nigeria by the OLIGARCHY IN ORDER TO GUARANTEE PERMANENT ACCESS TO THE SEA AND THE OIL RESOURCES. The existence of that nonsensical article on indissolubility and indivisibility of the Federation and exclusion of the Right to Self Determination in the Nigerian Constitution is the source of arrogance and disrespect by the oligarchy on the rest of over 250 ethnic nationalities, who are as it is, entrapped in the oligarchy's enslavement. An Act of Parliament on Self Determination is inferior to the constitutional provision which has entrenched indissolubility and  indivisibility.

It is imperative that for Nigerians to free themselves from this enslavement of the oligarchy, this
breach and/or abridgment  of international covenants and charters must be challenged in the
international arena and expunged from the Nigerian Constitution and its place have entrenched the
provisions of UN ICCPR Part One Article 1(1) and AU's ACHPR Article 20(1).

This is what MASSOB and IPOB (Indigenous People of Biafra) are agitating for and under
 Chapter IV Article 39(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, which guarantees Freedom of Expression - Every person shall be entitled to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information without interference;
and Article 40 which guarantees Freedom of Association -

  Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interests. . .; neither the Federal Government of General Buhari nor South East
Governors and bandit Ohanaeze Ndigbo, has a right under Nigeria's laws to deny the demonstrators
their constitutional rights. It is instead binding duty of the governments to protect the demonstrators.
Nandi Kanu, has fulfilled the terms of his bail and it is a demonstration of irresponsible lawlessness for the Federal Government to continue to detain him indefinitely. It is time his minders took his case international courts.

All free thinkers in Nigeria who value fundamental freedoms in place of present enslavement by the oligarchy, must support the struggle within Nigeria and in the international arena for expunging Section 2(1) from the Nigerian Constitution and the entrenchment of the Right to Self Determination in the Nigerian Constitution.

Not to take any action, is endorsement of the present POW Cattle Republic of Nigeria in which the enslavers equate Nigerian citizens' fundamental rights to cattle rights based on a primordial, decadent
and retrogressive culture.

MASSOB DEMONSTRATION IS AGITATION FOR A GENUINE FEDERATION IN PLACE OF PRESENT CATTLE UNITARY REPUBLIC

MASSOB DEMONSTRATION IS AGITATION FOR A GENUINE FEDERATION IN PLACE OF PRESENT CATTLE UNITARY REPUBLIC

 Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." (James Madison, 4th President of USA, father of US Constitution because he authored the draft and Sponsored of the monumental US Bill of Rights).

I insist that in Nigeria ignorance rules. Agitation for Biafra is not so much for physical Biafra but against the denial of the inherent right of the 350 ethnic nationalities that make up Nigeria, to Self Determination by the monstrous and unitary Cattle Republic of Nigeria. The right to self determination in all federations engenders and guarantees EQUALITY and MUTUAL RESPECT  between the federating units in all enduring federations. Nigeria ratified all articles and protocols of the United Nations and African Union on the right to Self Determination of all peoples but as is typical of the lie that is Nigeria, none of the articles and protocols of the AU Charter and UN Covenant and Conventions are being observed or complied with in Nigeria's Cattle Unitary Republic.

Timorous and Gullible Nigerians do not understand that the Country is  a P. O. W. Camp where none of the Geneva Conventions is observed. Otherwise, can someone explain to me why in the past four years over 5,000 Nigerians have been wantonly killed by Cattle Fulani herdsmen in Southern Nigeria and Middle Belt, side by side with raping of women and sacking of whole communities. Tens of thousands are Internally Displaced Persons in Refugee Camps from communities sacked by Cattle Fulani herdsmen. Yet No Cattle Fulani has been arrested. A Senator and leader of Plateau State Assembly was killed by herdsmen in 2013 and till date no arrest. The Governor of Benue was shot at by herdsmen in his own State and no arrests were made. His ancestral community and 29 others within 25 kilometers radius were sacked by the herdsmen. The Police Inspector General pleaded helpless and the State Governor was compelled to eat humble pie. A nebulous peace was contrived enabling the herdsmen to graze their cattle anywhere in Benue State.

Seventy-seven year-old Chief Olu Falaye is a recent example. His farm was raided by these herdsmen. He was kidnapped and brutalized by these herdsmen for four long days and nights. For how long will Nigeria live with the menace of cattle Fulani herdsmen?

The demonstration or agitation by MASSOB can therefore be rightly construed as a demand for a real federation in place of present Cattle Unitary Republic of Nigeria OR like Dr. Azikiwe called for during the hectic days of the 1964 general elections, "if we cannot have a federation, let us call a meeting and separate in peace" INSTEAD OF THE PRESENT CATTLE UNITARY REPUBLIC!

Emeka Onyesoh.

PATRIOTISM - LOVE OF COUNTRY
Patriotism, as it is generally known and accepted in informed circles, derives from love of country and is invariably reaction from citizens to how well the State discharges its primary rationale for existence – security and welfare of citizens in equitable and transparent manner.  Love is by nature mutual. A country which does not care for its average citizens, naturally should expect no love from them and citizens will never offer such love.  Chapter II Fundamental Objectives &Directive Principles of State Policy (Section 14(2)(b) "The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government."
Dictionary Definition of Patriotism
 Patriotism is defined in Dictionaries as“zealous love of one’s country.”
Love by definition is an intense feeling of deep affection.
Synonyms of Love are: deep affection, fondness, attachment, endearment, warmth.
Definition of Patriotism in Social Science:
Patriotism as a feeling of attachment and love to one’s own social group – an ethnic group, nation or state – is usually regarded as a noble sentiment. it breeds altruism and engenders attitudes and behaviors promoting well being of the group. In extreme cases, it can also involve self-sacrifice: choosing welfare and safety of one’s national group over one’s own survival.
Patriotism is, in other words, a social force that can keep separate individuals together by turning an array of self-concerned agents into a community and a collection of distant groups into a nation.”
 Love of Country is therefore the summary of all definitions of patriotism. It is common knowledge that love (affection) between two persons cannot be decreed. It is a mutual relationship in which the two are bound in a reciprocal manner, with each giving, the same time it is taking or expecting to take. Patriotism can only therefore be generated by what a State represents to its citizens. It is like the relationship between a father and child and that between man and wife/lover. Was the father/man there for the child/woman when he/she needed support? In the case of a country, the determining factor is the ability of the government to fulfill the primary purpose of government – provision of and concern for the security and welfare of the people, identifiable in a transparent and easily realizable manner, not by nebulous concepts. If the state is unable to provide its aspect of what the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) best known today for his work on political philosophy, termed ‘Social (political) Contract’, patriotism is truncated.
Government as Ultimate Teacher of the Populace: Nigerians witnessed Prof. Onyebuchi Chukwu, Nigeria’s Minister of Health, assume citizens’ teacher on Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) during the EVD out-break in Nigeria. Prof. Filled in full the role of government as the ultimate teacher in special circumstances. Without the enlightenment care of the Federal Government, Ebola might have overrun Nigeria. It is worthwhile to note that this was one of the very rare occasions, the Federal Government of Nigeria was able to fulfill its social contract obligations to the people of Nigeria.
The Social Contract Theory in Governance:
The social contract theory of government requires that citizens cede individual freedoms to state with the understanding that they do so for the greater good of many, including themselves. If this is not so, if there is no clear benefit to society as a whole as a return for the loss of the individual rights and freedoms, then the spirit of the tacit agreement the citizen entered into has been broken.
Naturally when the spirit of the tacit agreement the citizen entered into with the state is broken, disorientation against the state follows and no amount of legislation can bring back such citizen’s affection for the state.
Serial and compound breaches of this social contract by government, a God-like party, lead to alienation. Patriotism automatically is withdrawn and no law can compel it.

Misconception of Patriotism by the 2014 National Conference

The 2014 National Conference obviously misconceived what generates love  of Country and was led to make following recommendation on Patriotism:

“In order to place a duty on citizens to embrace national loyalty above sectional or ethnic loyalties” the conference recommended in Section 6.2.1.s/No. 11 that a new Section 42 (3) be inserted in the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria after the existing Section 42 (1) & (2) so as to probably compel all Nigerians to be patriotic (Section 11, page 549): “Every Nigerian citizen shall adhere to the ideology of national patriotism above sectional or ethnic interest.” Here there is a simplistic assumption that patriotism, which naturally flows out of love of country, can be commanded into Nigerians by a law as an ideology. This military disposition to command affection for a country into citizens is consistent with the senseless “indivisible and indissoluble” provision in Section 2(1) of the Constitution intended to enforce unity in Nigeria regardless of malfunctioning governance. Unfortunately this nonsensical provision was repeated in the Conference Annexure titled “Charter for National Reconciliation and Integration.”
 Behind this presumption is an assumption by the oligarchs that ordinary Nigerians are cattle that can be commanded; and that all the oligarch’s subversive activities against love for the Nigerian State are not being observed and noted by the ordinary people.
To think that patriotism can be conjured by mere legislative action of adding Section 42(3) as proposed, is an exhibition of a misconception of human nature. Definitely this flows from military mentality. The soldier swears an oath to lay down his life for the fatherland in return for which the State is supposed to take full responsibility for his life. Unfortunately in non-military live situations, citizens cannot be commanded to love a country that does not care for them.
That close to 500 Nigerian elite could spend five billion Naira of the county's scarce resources to think out how to make Nigeria better, but did not understand the basic relationship between government discharge of its own aspect of the social contract and patriotism, shows how ruinous the Military has been to the mentality of Nigerian political elites. Nigeria citizens are definitely not soldiers that can be commanded to love their country as an ideology.
Nigeria is a disastrous failure in fulfilling any of the two crucial roles it owes to its citizens - welfare and security - as per the Social Contract.
The most provocative aspect of this failure is the flagrant display of impunity by Nigeria’s political class as they show off wealth acquired by abusing their offices and the people’s trust. They further display total rejection of any social contract with citizens. Nigerian citizens seem helpless since the political class at election time would manipulate themselves back to power. Regardless of political party, all Nigerian politicians share evenly in this same irresponsible attitude to their obligations to the privileges they enjoy by holding public offices. In the given circumstances of Nigeria, love-of-country and consequently patriotism, is withdrawn. No law can bring it back. What changes citizens’ attitude is not Law; it is a change to the right attitude of people in government on their obligations and responsibilities to citizens. If they do the right thing, alienation will cease and love-of-country/patriotism would resume.
The patriotism enjoyed by countries in the first world derive from generations of public office holders’ overt effort to meet the terms of the social contract with the citizens - gainful employment (with living wages), standard social security and infrastructure, security, guarantee of fundamental rights including decency in and out of the country and equality under the law as guaranteed by Common Law in an openly equitable judicial system.

PATRIOTISM - LOVE OF COUNTRY
Patriotism, as it is generally known and accepted in informed circles, derives from love of country and is invariably reaction from citizens to how well the State discharges its primary rationale for existence – security and welfare of citizens in equitable and transparent manner.  Love is by nature mutual. A country which does not care for its average citizens, naturally should expect no love from them and citizens will never offer such love.  Chapter II Fundamental Objectives &Directive Principles of State Policy (Section 14(2)(b) "The security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government."
Dictionary Definition of Patriotism
 Patriotism is defined in Dictionaries as“zealous love of one’s country.”
Love by definition is an intense feeling of deep affection.
Synonyms of Love are: deep affection, fondness, attachment, endearment, warmth.
Definition of Patriotism in Social Science:
Patriotism as a feeling of attachment and love to one’s own social group – an ethnic group, nation or state – is usually regarded as a noble sentiment. it breeds altruism and engenders attitudes and behaviors promoting well being of the group. In extreme cases, it can also involve self-sacrifice: choosing welfare and safety of one’s national group over one’s own survival.
Patriotism is, in other words, a social force that can keep separate individuals together by turning an array of self-concerned agents into a community and a collection of distant groups into a nation.”
 Love of Country is therefore the summary of all definitions of patriotism. It is common knowledge that love (affection) between two persons cannot be decreed. It is a mutual relationship in which the two are bound in a reciprocal manner, with each giving, the same time it is taking or expecting to take. Patriotism can only therefore be generated by what a State represents to its citizens. It is like the relationship between a father and child and that between man and wife/lover. Was the father/man there for the child/woman when he/she needed support? In the case of a country, the determining factor is the ability of the government to fulfill the primary purpose of government – provision of and concern for the security and welfare of the people, identifiable in a transparent and easily realizable manner, not by nebulous concepts. If the state is unable to provide its aspect of what the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) best known today for his work on political philosophy, termed ‘Social (political) Contract’, patriotism is truncated.
Government as Ultimate Teacher of the Populace: Nigerians witnessed Prof. Onyebuchi Chukwu, Nigeria’s Minister of Health, assume citizens’ teacher on Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) during the EVD out-break in Nigeria. Prof. Filled in full the role of government as the ultimate teacher in special circumstances. Without the enlightenment care of the Federal Government, Ebola might have overrun Nigeria. It is worthwhile to note that this was one of the very rare occasions, the Federal Government of Nigeria was able to fulfill its social contract obligations to the people of Nigeria.
The Social Contract Theory in Governance:
The social contract theory of government requires that citizens cede individual freedoms to state with the understanding that they do so for the greater good of many, including themselves. If this is not so, if there is no clear benefit to society as a whole as a return for the loss of the individual rights and freedoms, then the spirit of the tacit agreement the citizen entered into has been broken.
Naturally when the spirit of the tacit agreement the citizen entered into with the state is broken, disorientation against the state follows and no amount of legislation can bring back such citizen’s affection for the state.
Serial and compound breaches of this social contract by government, a God-like party, lead to alienation. Patriotism automatically is withdrawn and no law can compel it.

Misconception of Patriotism by the 2014 National Conference

The 2014 National Conference obviously misconceived what generates love  of Country and was led to make following recommendation on Patriotism:

“In order to place a duty on citizens to embrace national loyalty above sectional or ethnic loyalties” the conference recommended in Section 6.2.1.s/No. 11 that a new Section 42 (3) be inserted in the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria after the existing Section 42 (1) & (2) so as to probably compel all Nigerians to be patriotic (Section 11, page 549): “Every Nigerian citizen shall adhere to the ideology of national patriotism above sectional or ethnic interest.” Here there is a simplistic assumption that patriotism, which naturally flows out of love of country, can be commanded into Nigerians by a law as an ideology. This military disposition to command affection for a country into citizens is consistent with the senseless “indivisible and indissoluble” provision in Section 2(1) of the Constitution intended to enforce unity in Nigeria regardless of malfunctioning governance. Unfortunately this nonsensical provision was repeated in the Conference Annexure titled “Charter for National Reconciliation and Integration.”
 Behind this presumption is an assumption by the oligarchs that ordinary Nigerians are cattle that can be commanded; and that all the oligarch’s subversive activities against love for the Nigerian State are not being observed and noted by the ordinary people.
To think that patriotism can be conjured by mere legislative action of adding Section 42(3) as proposed, is an exhibition of a misconception of human nature. Definitely this flows from military mentality. The soldier swears an oath to lay down his life for the fatherland in return for which the State is supposed to take full responsibility for his life. Unfortunately in non-military live situations, citizens cannot be commanded to love a country that does not care for them.
That close to 500 Nigerian elite could spend five billion Naira of the county's scarce resources to think out how to make Nigeria better, but did not understand the basic relationship between government discharge of its own aspect of the social contract and patriotism, shows how ruinous the Military has been to the mentality of Nigerian political elites. Nigeria citizens are definitely not soldiers that can be commanded to love their country as an ideology.
Nigeria is a disastrous failure in fulfilling any of the two crucial roles it owes to its citizens - welfare and security - as per the Social Contract.
The most provocative aspect of this failure is the flagrant display of impunity by Nigeria’s political class as they show off wealth acquired by abusing their offices and the people’s trust. They further display total rejection of any social contract with citizens. Nigerian citizens seem helpless since the political class at election time would manipulate themselves back to power. Regardless of political party, all Nigerian politicians share evenly in this same irresponsible attitude to their obligations to the privileges they enjoy by holding public offices. In the given circumstances of Nigeria, love-of-country and consequently patriotism, is withdrawn. No law can bring it back. What changes citizens’ attitude is not Law; it is a change to the right attitude of people in government on their obligations and responsibilities to citizens. If they do the right thing, alienation will cease and love-of-country/patriotism would resume.
The patriotism enjoyed by countries in the first world derive from generations of public office holders’ overt effort to meet the terms of the social contract with the citizens - gainful employment (with living wages), standard social security and infrastructure, security, guarantee of fundamental rights including decency in and out of the country and equality under the law as guaranteed by Common Law in an openly equitable judicial system.

CATTLE-FULANI HERDSMEN MENACE – A MORE OMINOUS THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY THAN BOKO HARAM INSURGENCY

CATTLE-FULANI HERDSMEN MENACE – A MORE OMINOUS THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY THAN BOKO HARAM INSURGENCY
 Cattle-Fulani Herdsmen Menace,is a bequest of the apparent lock-up of Nigerians in POW camps in which not even the Geneva Convention on Treatment of POW of 21st Oct. 1950, is observed. Section 2(1) of the Constitution denies the federating peoples of Nigeria their inherent and inalienable Right to Self Determination and therefore completely stifles Mutual Respect between the people who have assigned to themselves the right of ownership of Nigeria and the rest of Nigerians who they regard as mere appendages. Everybody knows this but nobody talks about it in the open.

(1)Historical Background: The Cattle Fulani menace is a legacy of the Fulani conquest of Hausas in the Fulani wars of 1804-10 and the establishment of the Sokoto Caliphate of Sheik Othman Dan Fodio.  The Fulanis by nature are nomads as against the Hausas and other ethnic nationalities inhabiting the North, who are farmers. The Fulanis assumed the right to graze their cattle anywhere including Hausa farmlands. They overran farmlands, sacked people from their homes, and killed, maimed and raped women without qualm.  Sir Ahmadu Bello, the first premier of Northern Region in a patronizing effort to reduce tensions emanating from the frictions arising out of the free ranging Fulani herdsmen, created grazing routes and reserves. By 1964 Northern Regional government had gazetted up to 6.4 million hectares of the forest reserve, ninety-eight percent in the savanna. Sokoto Province had twenty-one percent of the land, followed by Kabba, Bauchi, Zaria, Ilorin, and Katsina, with 11-15 percent each (Awogbade 1982). The Wase, Zamfara, and Udubo reserves followed in succession. The implication was that large chunks of other peoples’ land had been awarded to Fulani herdsmen and their settlements grew within and without these reserves. As the reserves bordered with numerous northern minority communities, conflicts proliferated.

(ii)Threat to National Security: The dominion tendency of Cattle Fulani herdsmen seems to have heightened with the victory of the Federal forces in the 1967-70 “Civil War.” Armed with military assault weapons they have now extended their sovereignty over the whole of Nigeria, North Central, South-West, South-South and South-East zones,  killing, maiming and raping women with impunity and sacking and taking over communities and farm lands without any question whatsoever from the security agencies. Their activities are most ferocious in non-Moslem areas of Nigeria who they regard as infidels (unbelievers) who perhaps by their orientation have no right to life, property and dignity. Organized and registered as Miyetti Allah Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN), their patron is reportedly from the ultimate power in their Caliphate. The owners of the cattle ranging all over Nigeria are the most prominent and influential Fulanis – traditional and religious leaders, top political and administrative office holders, foremost security officers including generals etc. The herdsmen are mere minders and therefore enjoy unlimited protection from their owners. The herdsmen seem to obey no laws of Nigeria and even refuse to attend peace conferences in communities where they commit these havocs for which the security agencies rarely arrest them.
(iii)Casualties of the Menace: Nigerian Newspapers daily are awash with casualty figures of Cattle-Fulani herdsmen’s menace. Benue, Plateau and Southern Kaduna suffer the highest daily casualties. A Plateau sitting Senator and the leader of Plateau State Assembly who were both killed by Fulani herdsmen after attending burials of victims of the same scourge, are two of the most high profile killings by the herdsmen. Nigeria loses annually over 5,000 lives to herdsmen menace. One of the most pathetic cases of displacement by these herdsmen was recently reported in Southern Kaduna - a family head driven into a refugee camp as an internally displaced person with his entire family, went to visit his home in his ancestral homestead but had to keep a safe distance and observed Fulani families occupying his home whilst he and his family had to survive as IDPs in a refugee camp in his own State and country.
(iv) Audacity of Cattle Fulani herdsmen: Governor Gabriel Suswan of Benue State’s episode illustrates the fact that Nigeria has two classes of citizens – one above the law and the other under the law.  On 24th February, 2014Miyetti Allah Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN) was audacious enough to write President Goodluck Jonathan a highly provocative letter titled, “Mr.
President, Call Governor Suswan to Order Before It is Too Late” in which they not only threatened to
deal with Governor Suswan of Benue State in his home State for assisting the Tivs of the Middle Belt to limit the herdsmen’s murderous activities in the Middle Belt. They also reminded the President that their ranging across the country with their cattle is covered by Section 41, (1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of movement and settlement in all parts of Nigeria to all citizens of Nigeria. On10th March 2014, after an exchange of gun shots failed to get the Governor in a convoy, they attacked Mr. Suswan’s ancestral village, killed 25, and sacked the village plus 29 other communities within 25 kilometres radius. MACBAN had deliberately ignored n their letter to the President, the fact that the freedom of movement guaranteed by S.41 (1) refers only to Nigeria citizens and definitely not cattle, an item of trade whose movement is subject to regulation for society’s safety, comfort and convenience.  Besides, the right to freedom of movement under reference is not absolute since Section 45(1) of the same Constitution subordinates those rights to any reasonable law enacted in “the interest of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or
public health; or for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons.” Imagine
Cattle rearers and their owners threatening a State Governor in his own State through the President of the Country and being able to execute that threat.                                                                                                                                                             (v) Failure of Governance by the Federal government: The Federal Government of Nigeria has failed and indeed abdicated its responsibility to Nigerian citizens whose security and welfare, according to section 14 (2) (b) of the 1999 Constitution, are the primary purpose of governance.  In the case of Benue state Governor, then Inspector-General, Alhaji M D Abubakar, an Upper Northerner, impliedly told the Governor that he was not offering any help and the Governor, humbled, was forced to enter a peace accord with MACBAN, allowing the herders to graze their cattle anywhere in Benue but pay for damages by free ranging cattle!                                        
Nigeria is not a major Cattle breeding nation of the world. According to 1990/92 Nigerian Livestock Resources (RIM) Survey estimates, Nigeria had less than 13.90 million cattle.  Major cattle breeding countries of the world, by 2009 figures have as high as 285 million cattle in India; 187,087,000 in Brazil; China 139,721,000; U.S.A. 96,669,000; EU 87,650,000,Argentina 51,062,000; Pakistan
38,300,000; Australia 29,202,000; Mexico  26,489,000. Pastorialism or free ranging of cattle is not practised in most, if not all, of the above major cattle breeding nations, in the interest of public safety and health. Pastorialism is primitive, out-moded, uncivilised, and uneconomic; and has been long discarded by the civilised and productive world.                                                
(vi) The Ineptitude of State Governments: Several communities in States in the South-East have been variously under ferocious attacks by cattle Fulani herdsmen. Perhaps, as a result of hangover of defeat in the last civil war, or the seemingly general acceptance of these attacks as rightful to Fulanis, reactions from Governors and State legislators have been timorously bashful. In 2013 in Imo State, the Deputy Speaker of Imo State House of Assembly, after enumerating series of unprovoked attacks on some communities in Owerri West, Ohaji/Egbema and Ngor Okpala local council areas by the nomadic herdsmen, which resulted in the destruction of crops, farmlands, raping of women and girls, as well as killing and maiming of the villagers, merely called on the security agencies to come to their
aid after organizing hearings and street demonstrations. In Enugu State, the State Assembly seemed
to have followed up on the 2011 abandoned defeatist leadership of the National Assembly by initiating a Bill to create grazing routes and reserves in Enugu State for Fulani herdsmen and their cattle as a means of eliminating the violence. I joined NGOs who attended the public hearings and shot the bill down.
6.  The Way Forward: The Cattle Fulani herdsmen menace is a byproduct of the dominion quest of the Fulani over Nigeria and driven by fundamentalist Islamic doctrine which makes slaying “the unbeliever” in Allah (kafir) by “the believer,” and taking over of his possessions including women, passport to paradise.  Sample quotes from the Quran: Surah 2: 191-193: “And kill them (the unbeliever) wherever you find them and turn them out from where they have turned you out.”
Surah 2: 244: “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah heareth and knoweth all things.”

 (a) Location of markets and movement of cattle within States fall under the residual functions of States. States should therefore enact laws limiting movement of cattle by road to motorized
transportation and/or rail and their sale only in designated markets. Twelve northern States from 1999-200 enacted Sharia laws criminalizing movement, sale and/or consumption of alcohol in their various States and these laws are being enforced with even Sharia Police (Hizbah) created by state law in states like Kano in flagrant violation of Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended);                                                                      (b) The Northern states from where these cattle are transported to the South, should facilitate the establishment of ranches and/or grazing reserves in the home States of these cattle herdsmen who have untold proclivity for violence. Dams and bore holes to ensure all-year round availability of water and grass; and adoption of improved veterinary methods and technology should be promoted to improve yield.  Leopards and sheep are never bred in the same pen.
The Cattle Fulani herdsmen need orientation in the rights of every Nigerian citizen to life, property
and decency before they venture outside their home States;                                                                                                                                        (c) The Nigerian Police must enforce the existing laws on sophisticated weapons carried by these herdsmen and also enforce state laws on movement of cattle, whenever such laws are enacted;  
                                                                                                                                                                                     (d) States in the SE zone must reinvigorate animal husbandry as initiated by Dr. Michael Okpara’s Eastern Regional government of the 1960s to produce more live stock from within.                                                                                                                   (e) There shall be an Igbo Institute where dedicated thinkers should be permanently addressing Igbo issues like the
 (f) The Federal Government must assist states in the establishment of ranches and enhanced animal husbandry.                                                                                                                          
 (g) All political, religious and traditional leaders in the North who are sincere on indivisibility or indissolubility of the Nigerian Federation must openly condemn the nefarious activities of Hausa/Fulani herdsmen whose activities threaten Nigerian federation even more than Boko Haram.                                             (h) The Senate bill no. SB. 114 seeking to enact an Act to Provide for the Establishment of the National Grazing and Reserve (Establishment and Development) Commission for the Preservation and Control of National Grazing Reserves and Stock Routes and for Other Matters Therewith and its sister bill in the House of Representatives no.HB.11.10.30: An Act to Establish a National Grazing Route and Reserve Commission. Establish and Manage National Grazing Routes and Reserves in the [Entire] Nation and for Other Incidental Matters should be thrown out the window as an assault on the psyche and sensibilities of Nigerians in general and the victims of the Hausa/Fulani herdsmen’s rampage and the affected areas under siege, in particular. Besides, it assaults the fundamentals of federation. Instead, the National Assembly should enact a law prohibiting all movement of cattle on hoofs all over the Federation, in consonance with state laws on the
 (i) Effort should be made by all concerned in the North to reform Islamic fundamentalism, as it is practiced in most of the North-West and North-East, to liberal or moderate Islam as it is practiced in such progressive Moslem nations as Turkey and Malaysia and in the South-West zone of Nigeria. Islamic fundamentalism, NOT ISLAM per se, is antithetical to federalism in a religiously plural state. It is intolerant of secularity of any kind in a federal state and both are therefore mutually exclusive. Wherever they mix, there is constant friction resulting in violence. It is my profound view that Criminal Sharia Law, which is the bedrock of Islamic fundamentalism, is antithetical to Common Law and therefore inconsistent with secular democracy. Controversies in managing the two have resulted in Muslims being involved in over 90% of all the wars and terrorism in the world today.
Conclusion: Cattle Fulani Herdsmen Menace is a more serious national security threat than Boko Haram and is over-running the entire country. Unchecked, today’s misery of the people of Plateau, Benue, Southern Kaduna, and Nassarawa states would be the lot of South-East and other Southern zones  in a matter of 20-30 years. Nigeria continues to be a failed State projected to disintegrate
between 2015 and 2030, not just 2015. The twelve principal indicators of State Failure areprominently in Nigeria and growing by the day – demographic pressures (inability to cope with disease, environment, malnutrition,  population growth, youth bulge and immorality; Refugees and internally displaced persons; group vengeance (militants); chronic and sustained human flight;  uneven development along group lines; poverty and sharp and/or severe economic decline; criminalization and or de-legitimization of the State - endemic corruption and impunity; progressive deterioration of public services (infrastructure decay); Human rights and Rule of Law violations; Security – states within a state (armed groups); Rise of factionalized elites; and Intervention of other States – foreign military assistance.
Surviving the 2015 election in which blackmail guns were pointed at the heads of sections of the country to force election of a particular candidate and during which election, there was massive movement of population from one  part of the country to the other, in anticipation of such post-election violence in the event of loss of a preferred candidate;  and prevention of  prominent
presidential candidate from campaigning in other zones under threat of violence, are serious indications of State failure and not success as some prominent Nigerians glibly gloat.
A house divided against itself cannot stand, the Bible says. “This nation cannot survive half slave and half free” was the mantra of Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), 16th President of United States (1861-65) as he started the campaign against Slavery in Springfield Illinois on 16th June 1858.
Unfortunately for Nigeria, there is no open acceptance that a division exists among the over 350 ethnic nations that make up Nigeria  and therefore no effort of any kind being made to promote any common unifying identity which sustains nations.  The oligarchy pretends Nigeria is one when it suits it but when it comes to sharing power, it excludes all others.