IPOB: The thin line between terrorists and freedom fighters (1)

Thu, Sep 28, 2017 | By publisher


Column

 

  • By Mike Ozekhome

 

Introduction

Chinua Achebe once rightly observed that what a country needs to do is to be fair to all its citizens, whether the people be of different ethnicity or gender. On this note, we x-ray the recent proscription of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) by the Federal Government.

 

A FEW days ago, the Federal Government finally complied with the provisions of section 2 of the Terrorism Prevention Act, 2011, by obtaining an imprimatur from a Federal High Court in Abuja, coram Honourable Justice A. A. Kafarati, to outlaw the IPOB. The application was granted ex parte by the said Acting Chief of the FHC. I had spilled streams of ink about this being the right way to go; not through sheer brute force, or mere verbal pronouncement. The government finally listened!

It is my humble view, however, that section 2 of the Terrorism Prevention Act, 2011(TPA), cannot be read in isolation. By a community reading of the provisions of the Terrorism Prevention Act, 2011, and Terrorism (Prevention)(Amendment) Act, 2013 (TPAA), the Federal Government has completed its own vengeful duty with regard to the unwarranted proscription under the Act. However, by the provisions of section 19(d) of the TPAA, the proscription is yet inchoate. Some questions that boggle the mind are as follow:

Can IPOB be truly described as a terrorist organisation, such as to lead its proscription?

Was the US right in rejecting the tag of a terrorist group placed on IPOB?

Can a proscription be fully completed without involving the National Assembly?

Are the provisions of section 2 TPA, 2011, and the subsequent Amendment Act, which give the Attorney General of the Federation the right to make an application ex parte to a judge in chambers for the purpose of proscribing a group without giving the group the right to be heard by the court inter parte, not illegal and unconstitutional?

Let us peer into the legal regime and US reaction.

Section 19(d) of (TPAA), for clarity, provides as follows:

(a)  Substituting for the definition of the words “proscribed organisation” after the definition of the words “proceeds of terrorism”, the following new definition –

“Proscribed organisation” is a group involved in terrorism and is prohibited by law from operating in Nigeria and –

(i)  declared to be a proscribed organisation under section 2 of this Act; and

(ii)  includes a group, which has been declared to be an international terrorist group under section 9 of this Act:

Was the US right to reject the tag of terrorist  group placed on IPOB?

Based on the above provisions of the TPAA, the US was quite right in rejecting the unmerited tag of a terrorist organisation placed on IPOB by the Nigerian government. It is a most disingenuous way of giving a dog a bad name with a view to hanging it. One man’s meat is another man’s poison. Therefore, the government’s terrorist group is actually the Igbo’s recognised freedom fighters, a fight to rescue the Igbo race from undisguised repression, marginalisation, disrespect and ridicule as second class citizens. The blatant refusal by the Nigerian state to execute the 3“Rs” (Reconstruction, Rehabilitation and Reconciliation), for the Igbo race after the three years bloody civil war, refers. That is why they have since voluntarily queued up behind Nnamdi Kanu, as the symbol of this struggle for self-determination. It is not about Nnamdi Kanu. Any other person that mirrors their aspirations would have enjoyed the same confidence and unalloyed loyalty and followership, which was witnessed when he ordered a sit-at-home in the entire South East in May, this year. This recorded a huge success to the panic, fear, discomfort, embarrassment and changrin of the Federal Government. This was an unforced compliance by the Ndigbo race across the entire five states of the South East and up to Cross River and Akwa Ibom states, inspite of the well acknowledged Igbo’s inclination towards republicanism. I am not an Igbo, but I am, aside from being a constitutional lawyer and pioneer human rights activist in Nigeria, a good student of history and world affairs. I know that Nelson Mandela was also tagged a terrorist by the then British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and other world leaders, for being a freedom fighter to rescue his fellow South Africans from the asphyxiating evil clutches of apartheid. It was not until his release from prison, election as president and glorious passage, that the entire western world recanted and repented of its historical blasphemy of the tag. Till date, his statue stands resplendent at Madame Tussauds in London, with other acclaimed iconic world legends.

Until enthronement of social justice and equality, there will always be IPOBs

Before IPOB, there was MASSOB and Uwazuruike. Before IPOB, there was Issac Adako Boro. Before IPOB, there was Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Ogoni Bill of Rights, the Kiama Declaration, etc. Aside from IPOB, there were and are OPC, Niger Delta Avengers, Arewa Youths, Agatu, Herdsmen, Shiites, Southern Kaduna, Odi, Zaki Biam, Gbaramatu, etc. After IPOB and Kanu, other groups will still spring up. An anthill does not harbour only one rabbit. Many more rabbits are sequestered there in hibernation. Injustice and inequity, such as we currently have in Nigeria, with all the visible faultlines, weak superstructure, flawed foundation and deepening cleavages, will continue to breed insurrection, protests, resistance and disaffection. The panacea is not in resorting to strong arm, or brute force by a rampaging army, or of a military clamp down, or government repression, through “Operation Python Dance”. It will NEVER solve the problem, because he who brings a maggot infested piece of firewood into his house has invited colonies of maggots and lizards. He should not complain. No matter how the python dances, stretches, poisons, wriggles, it cannot solve the problem.

Hate him venomously, or love him passionately, Kanu has come to stay. He has, for good changed the entire narrative of our warped unitary system of government dressed in fake garments of federalism. He panicked the government; and brought the issue of restructuring, self-determination, true federalism, devolution of powers and social justice in the Nigerian system to the forefront. He brought the Igbo cause to the front burner more than anyone else has done since the days of Ojukwu. Dead or alive, Kanu has been inducted into the pantheon of iconic freedom fighters in Nigeria. He may be a terrorist in the blurred sight of the government but, Kanu is a freedom fighter in the eyes of the average Ndigbo and the international community.

Can IPOB really be regarded as a group involved in terrorism as envisaged by the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act (TPAA)?

Features of a terrorist organisation

Amongst others, terrorist organisations possess the following characteristics:

  1. Commit offences against the human person, which can cause death or serious injury.
  2. Massive destruction on a large scale, of public property, public infrastructure, transportation systems, information systems, fixed continental platforms, private property, thus risking the lives of people.
  3. Hijacking of aircraft, ships or other means of transport.
  4. Producing, storing, buying, transporting or trading in explosives, firearms, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons; and research in the production of the above mass destruction weapons.
  5. Distributing environmentally hazardous substances, which cause fires, floods, explosions, all with the intent to endanger the lives of persons, or causing serious financial damage.
  6. Causing seizure of water, electricity or other relevant sources of energy.
  7. Operating from camps, wilderness, forests, caves and other secluded areas.
  8. Engaging in kidnapping, maiming, raping, bombing and destroying public properties, amongst other heinous crimes.
  9. Usually not amenable to peaceful negotiation.
  10. Intimidating and overawing the government and the entire nation.

From the above features of terrorist organisations, IPOB has not been linked in any way or manner howsoever, with any of these ignoble features. Rather, IPOB is a known group of protesters, who are involved in peacefully agitating for their self-determination and calling for a referendum (which has been grossly misinterpreted by government, as amounting to intimidation on the whole nation), to enable them achieve their economic, social, political and civil rights, as an identifiable entity, separate from Nigeria. The activities of the group are essentially characterised by moving in troops, with cardboards placards in their hands; singing, blowing whistles and flutes in agitation for self-independence. They wear berets, t-shirts and carry flags with the Biafran insignia. These agitators live among their family members within the society. They fetch the same spirogyra-infested water from where others fetch. They attend the same churches, markets, schools and other social gatherings with the rest members of their societies. They are not masked. They are not faceless. They can be identified in the neighbourhood. They wine and dine with others. They do not pose any threats to the society or the nation at large. The fundamental objective of IPOB is to peacefully secede from Nigeria, and nothing more.

IPOB is, therefore, not a terrorist group since terrorist organisations have distinguishing criminal features, as highlighted above.

Does agitation for self-determination  amount to terrorism?

Various international instruments have acknowledged and endorsed the right to self-determination. Among such international instruments are:

Article 2 (a) Convention of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on Combating International Terrorism, of 1999: Provides that Peoples’ struggle, including armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination in accordance with the principles of international law, shall not be considered terrorist acts.

Article 3(1) of the OAU Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism, 1999: Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1 of the Convention, any struggle waged by peoples in accordance with the principles of international law for their liberation or self-determination, including armed struggle against colonialism, occupation, aggression and domination by foreign forces are not considered as terrorist acts.

Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul Charter) 1987 (ACHPR):

  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. Colonised or oppressed peoples shall have the right to free themselves from the bonds of domination by resorting to any means recognised 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.

Nigeria has not only ratified the ACHPR on 22nd June 1983, but has also domesticated it later in same 1983. It is now Ratification and Enforcement Act, LFN, 2004.

Thought for the week

Democracy must be built through open societies that share information…When there is no sharing of power, no rule of law, no accountability, there is abuse, corruption, subjugation and indignation. –Atifete Jahjaga.

– Sept 28, 2017 @ 11:33 GMT /

Tags: