Biafra: Self-Determination, NOT Secession and NOT War

Biafra: Self-Determination, NOT Secession and NOT War

Following the ongoing peaceful protest march by the Indigenous people of Biafra(IPOB) and the consequent commentaries from both sides of the elites, it is pertinent to enlighten us more on the right to self determination as opposed to secession because the public, even the most educated by Nigerian standard have a war insinuation of Biafra.

This struggle is not secession which is the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state by force as against the current modus operandi of Biafra which is self-determination, the process by which an indigenous people with same culture, religion, language ,identity and boundary determines its own statehood and forms its own government under the armpit of international law.

But although through decolonization the right of self-determination has become well-entrenched in international law and UN practice, it remains philosophically questionable. ]The first question is, what constitutes an indigenous people or nation? Second, why should nations and states correspond, ideally? Third, when they do not, why should each nation included in the state have internal self-determination, and what does that mean? There are various possible answers to these questions.

I will not pursue them, but I will say something about the most basic of these questions, what constitutes an indigenous people, Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.

My next topic here is the right to be governed.

Catalonia is seeking self-determination and independence from Spain. They are not being shot and killed

Self-determination was of course not invented by the United Nations, or even by the League of Nations. During World War I the rhetoric of self-determination was used not only first by Woodrow Wilson,the 28th president of US, but also by Lloyd George and Leon Trotsky and Lenin, and it was already commonplace. The idea goes back to the French Revolution. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), article 3, says: “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation”. In English this sounds simply like a re-statement of the familiar principle that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. But in the Declaration of the Rights of Man the word “nation” had overtones derived from its Latin root.

It derives from Latin “nasci”, to be born, or, metaphorically, to arise: a nation are people who have a common origin, people who are related by birth. The French were not in fact racially homogeneous; what the revolutionaries took as an index of nationality was language.

The “principle of nationality” during the nineteenth century meant the idea that all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation, in the sense of a race of people who speak the same language.

Scotland is seeking self-determination. The recently had an independence referendum

Article 33 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live.

2. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structures and to select the membership of their institutions in accordance with their own procedures.

A portion of mankind may be said to constitute a Nationality if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others-which make them co-operate with each other more willingly than with other people, desire to be under the same government, and desire that it should be government by themselves or a portion of themselves exclusively. This feeling of nationality may have been generated by various causes. Sometimes it is the effect of identity of race and descent. Community of language, and community of religion, greatly contribute to it. Geographical limits are one of its causes. But the strongest of all is identity of political antecedents; the possession of a national history, cultural ,religious and above all boundary affiliation and consequent community of recollections; collective pride and humiliation, pleasure and regret, connected with the same incidents in the past. None of these circumstances, however, are either indispensable, or necessarily sufficient by themselves

Falklands recently had a self-determination referenddum that was fully supported by the United Kingdom

A UNESCO meeting in 1989 defined nationality in a very similar way:

A people for the rights of peoples in international law, including the right to self-determination, has the following characteristics: 1. A group of individual human beings who enjoy some or all of the following common features: (a) A common historical tradition; (b) Racial or ethnic identity; (c) Cultural homogeneity; (d) Linguistic unity; (e) Religious or ideological affinity; (f) Territorial connection; (g) Common economic life. 2. The group must be of a certain [i.e. uncertain] number who need not be large (e.g. the people of micro States) but must be more than a mere association of individuals within a State; 3. The group as a whole must have the will to be identified as a people or the consciousness of being a people–allowing that groups or some members of such groups, though sharing the foregoing characteristics, may not have the will or consciousness; and 4. Possibly the group must have institutions or other means of expressing its common characteristics and will for identity.

The British had selfishly lumped several countries together for economic purpose but the UN says here(1914 amalgamation) but the general assembly , in order to minimized wars amongst countries as the result of quest for emancipation of indigenous peoples who were forcefully colonized without their consent adopted 14th December 1960 resolution conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,

And to this end Declares that:

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

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

3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

This lecture will not be complete without bringing home the African charter on Human and peoples right(also known as the Banjul charter) an international human rights instrument that is intended to promote and protect human rights and basic freedoms in the African continent. of which Nigeria is a signatory. though its guarded by 68 articles , we take : ARTICLE 7

1. Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises:

1. The right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts of violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force;

2. The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty by a competent court or tribunal;

3. The right to defence, including the right to be defended by counsel of his choice;

4. The right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court or tribunal.

2. No one may be condemned for an act or omission which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was committed. No penalty may be inflicted for an offence for which no provision was made at the time it was committed. Punishment is personal and can be imposed only on the offender.

3. It is on this legal premise that Bilie Human Rights Initiative representing the Indigenous people of Biafra(IPOB) stand in the suit No FHC/OW/CS/192/2013, brought under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the Bilie Human Rights Initiative representing IPOB, the claimants who are indigenes of the South East geo-political zone of Nigeria, parts of South South geo-political and the Middle Belt zones had dragged the Federal Republic of Nigeria and its Attorney-General of the Federation to the court as first and second defendants, seeking to be given the right to self-determination.

According to the originating summons, the claimants are seeking a declaration of the court to enforce their right to self-determination, pursuant to the relevant Articles on African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adding that they are equally asking the court to order the defendants to redress all wrongs inflicted on them by the defendants in consequence whereof.

The claimants further prayed the court to determine whether the IPOB who are the remnants that were not consumed in the Nigeria-Biafra civil war of 1967 –1970 have the right of self-determination pursuant to Articles 19 –25 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

They also want the court to determine whether the claimants who identified themselves as Biafrans by indigenous identity were committing any offence by doing so contrary to any provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 or contrary to any provision of the Criminal Code and whether it is a crime under any national or international law to mention the name of Biafra or for the remnants of IPOB who were not consumed by the war to maintain their indigenous identity as Biafrans with their native emblems and symbols as they do now, even though they are Nigerians by citizenship and nationality laws.The next case comes up at Owerri on the 15th of December 2015

Long live the United States of Biafra

-M.M.Mbanaja