Biafra Day killing: From civil war to civilian insurgency?
The ongoing Biafra struggle has taken a new and alarming turn following the recently alleged killing of soldiers by Biafran agitators. This tragic incident has reignited tensions and raised concerns about the evolution of the agitation.
The Biafra agitation which began as a civil war in the late 1960s appears to be morphing into a civilian insurgency, posing fresh challenges for national security and regional stability. The questions now loom:
Is the Biafra struggle transitioning from its historical roots into a new phase of armed civilian unrest? Is it high Nigeria adopted the doctrine of necessity and let the people go like Moses told King Pharaoh or or shall we await more calamitous moments from Biafra agitation? Are the Biafra agitators guided properly as prophet Moses was guided?
Let us take a short biblical analogy. When Moses told King Pharaoh, “Let my people go”, Moses was a prophet and leader to the Israelites during their enslavement in Egypt. According to the biblical narrative in the Book of Exodus, Moses was chosen by God to lead the Israelites out of bondage and into freedom. He was born to Hebrew parents but was raised in the Egyptian royal household after being found and adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter.
Despite his Egyptian upbringing, Moses maintained a strong connection to his Hebrew roots.
When Moses confronted Pharaoh and demanded, “Let my people go,”he was acting on divine instruction. God had revealed Himself to Moses in the form of a burning bush, commanding him to deliver the Israelites from slavery. Moses’s role was pivotal as he became the intermediary between God and the Israelites, performing miracles, negotiating with Pharaoh, and ultimately guiding the Israelites out of Egypt and towards the Promised Land.
This is a story somewhat similar to the Igbos’ case. The Igbos were captured in the geographic location that later became a political entity called Nigeria and despite the Nigerian upbringing might have felt they do not belong to Nigeria and Nigeria does not belong to them.
However, unlike the Israelites who never took arms against the Egyptian government but rather trusted and patiently waited for God’s appointed time while Moses prodded delicately on their behalf by the wisdom given to him by God, the Biafra agitators have seem to be doing something quite different.
When Moses told Pharaoh to let his people go, Egypt was under a system of government known as a theocratic monarchy. In this system, the Pharaoh was both the political and religious leader of Egypt. Pharaohs were considered divine or semi-divine figures, believed to be chosen by the gods to rule and to maintain the order and harmony of the universe (known as Ma’at). This combination of religious and political authority gave the Pharaoh immense power over the land and its people.
Granted that the system of government that would warrant such a patience as demonstrated by Moses and his brethren in Egypt was different from the system in Nigeria, it also gave so much power to the government just as democracy has given so much power to the Nigeria government during this struggle. Besides, is it too difficult to trust and look up to God why Mnamdi Kanu prod the Nigerian government deliberately as did Israelites in the days of Moses or are they doubting his ordination?
Many people have argued that despite their historical grievances and current challenges, the Igbos’ continuous participation in Nigeria’s political system reflects a complicated relationship with the state they once fought to leave, questioning their constitutional right to keep asking for Biafra under independence laws. The debate truly remains deeply entangled in the legal, historical, and political intricacies of Nigeria and the broader international community.
With insights from the foregoing, it seems the continued demand for an independent Biafra by the Igbos will raise intricate constitutional and international legal questions in a democratic dispensation like Nigeria in respect of balancing Nigeria’s othos of unity against the right to self-determination. It also encompasses both national and international legal frameworks.
Constitutionally, the Nigerian Constitution underscores the unity and indivisibility of Nigeria. It explicitly states that any attempt to secede or promote secession is illegal. Consequent upon this, pursuing an independent Biafra through unilateral secession is unconstitutional under Nigerian law.
On the part of Freedom of Expression and Association, the Nigerian Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and association, allowing peaceful advocacy for independence, it does not permit taking up arms or inciting violence for secessionist purposes.
Whereas, according to the international legal stipulations, according to the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, peoples have the right to self-determination. However, this principle is balanced against the territorial integrity of states, making secession a contentious issue under international law.
However, the Remedial Secession concept provides for the possibility of secession as a remedy for severe oppression or denial of fundamental rights, but to gain international support for secession, a group must demonstrate systematic oppression and that all other means of achieving their rights within the state have been exhausted. This is a high bar to clear by the Biafra agitators.
Historically, despite the Biafra conflict of 1967-1970, during which the Igbos fought for independence and subsequently surrendered, the Igbos have since been integrated into the Nigerian political system. They have held government positions, received state revenue, and contested for the presidency. These actions could be seen as an acceptance of the Nigerian state, complicating the argument and destiny of Biafra for secession.
On practical Considerations, I feel that engaging in political dialogue within Nigeria’s framework can address grievances and seek greater autonomy or federal restructuring without outright secession with sincere minds by all and sundry will pay better than violent agitations.
This can be achieved by pursuing constitutional amendments or legal reforms within Nigeria’s democratic framework by Igbos in the legislative chambers and every well meaning Nigerian will be a more viable pathway for addressing self-determination issues such as the Biafran course.
Happy that while the Nigerian Constitution prohibits secession, international law offers a framework for the Igbos to seek autonomy or independence through peaceful, legal, and political means. This is clear proof that any move toward secession would require navigating complex national and international legal principles and would likely involve significant political navigations and compromises.
Recent hostile postures by Biafra agitators, such as the killing of soldiers during Biafra Day commemorations, will rather heighten tension and are likely to demand more sacrifices than deliberative means.
By Ernen Kaanti
About the Author
Ernen Kaanti holds B.A Mass Communication from the prestigious University of Nigeria Nsukka. He also holds a diploma in Mass Communication from the Benue State Polytechnic, Ugbokolo. He has interest protecting democracy. Ernen has interest in sociopolitical, economic and human rights affairs. He has flair for both fiction and nonfiction writing and has been publishing with media platforms including crispng.com.
