Featured, Opinion
The Kidnapping and Rendition of Nnamdi Kanu: Between Nigeria’s Boastful Admittance and Britain’s Shameful Support
By Slik Mgbeahurike
It is no longer news that the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), also known as M16 infiltrated Nnamdi Kanu’s Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) organization in London, Berlin and Igboland. However, what is not known to many, is why they did it, considering that Kanu has been leading IPOB for almost a decade.
Indeed, Britain and the North (Fulani leaders in particular) are in a joint business in the geographical space called Nigeria. In fact, geopolitically speaking, Nigeria is a British sphere of influence, having been created by them, and inherited by the Fulani. This business relationship is as old as Nigeria, and there is no end to it in sight. It is to the interest of Britain for the status quo to be maintained, so that Nigeria will continue to be a ‘crawling giant’ for them to remain top gainer. Any attempt to challenge this arrangement is resisted and thwarted. For instance, as recently as 2015, it was politically challenged, Britain did not only resist it, they also enlisted the help of their ‘cousins’ across the Atlantic. It was extremely challenged in the 1960s, they enlisted the help of their enemy, the Soviet Union.
Undoubtedly, IPOB’s activities have been protesting peacefully on the streets, broadcasting on a Radio station and pouring emotions on Social Media. They were largely ignored, therefore no concrete steps were taken to contain their leader. However, the recent activities of IPOB frightened the owners of Nigeria, and to their consternation, they discovered that IPOB talks the talk, and can also walk the walk if need be. This was exemplified by Kanu who lived in faraway United Kingdom and within a twinkling, set up an armed group that rattled the highly equipped Sleeper Agents, commonly known as Fulani Herdsmen in Igboland. To them, if such a man were not contained immediately, and diplomatic tools offered to him by the ‘Axis of Resistance’, it would no longer be business as usual for them in Nigeria. How did they respond to this? Let me digress a little.
The creation of a State is an onerous task, which consumes human lives, takes years, and with economic activities destabilization. This process follows these phases, in no particular order: military might, diplomatic support, cash inducement and religious influence/political sensitization. Kanu started by sensitizing Igbo people on the need to give a second shot at Biafra, knowing that sensitization comes before program, just as feasibility study comes before design, and planning before implementation. To his credit, he has been able to successfully unify Igbo people balkanized in other geopolitical zones, with those in Southeast and awakened Igbo youths. He did this through Radio Biafra – where he once said he would “destroy Nigeria with truth.” He knows that Nigeria is scared of its disgraceful history, and as a result have refused to allow it to be taught in schools. This has made its youthful population (those born after the civil war) to be totally ignorant of their history. Kanu’s approach is so successful that he would announce for people not to vote, and millions would obey. He would ask for a sit-at-home, and he would receive 100 per cent compliance. Those in the joint business did not mind, until people willingly carried arms for him to confront the highly armed Fulani Herdsmen. They got rattled, and moved in on him, knowing that if he is still ignored, the crisis may escalate. And if it reaches the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), any of the P5+1 might offer Kanu the needed diplomatic support. History abounds on countries that followed these steps and created a State. For example, in the establishment of the State of Israel, Theodor Herzl formed Zionist Movement to sensitize Jews around the world on the need for the creation of Jewish homeland. He founded Zionist newspaper – Die Welt – and energetically promoted his ideas to attract supporters, and also tried to cash-induce the Ottoman Empire by proposing to pay off Turkish foreign debt and help Turkey regain its financial footing in return for Palestine as a Jewish homeland. During this period, Britain deceptively presented itself as the Messiah – just as they are currently doing in Kanu-Buhari imbroglio – by proposing for a Jewish homeland in Uganda. Though, Herzl did not live to witness the rejection of Uganda by the Zionist organization as he died of cardiac sclerosis in 1904. Nevertheless, some years later Britain took over Palestine from the Ottoman Empire after the First World War. Surprisingly, they refused to grant Jews a homeland in Palestine as they initially proposed in Uganda, instead engaged in guerrilla attacks against the Jews. Having secured the diplomatic support of Harry S. Truman (the 33rd U.S. President), Irgun, the militant right-wing of Zionist underground organization, in 1946 bombed King David hotel – the British administrative headquarters – killing 91 people, and 46 were injured. Two years later, the State of Israel was established. This is what IPOB is currently lacking: Diplomatic support – someone that can speak for them at the UNSC, and Britain is not the country, as they are already speaking for Nigeria.
Obviously, having the aforementioned history in mind, the owners of Nigeria knew that with Kanu’s Eastern Security Network (ESN), the situation could escalate and become complicated, therefore must be contained immediately. Those on ground formed what is today known as Unknown Gunmen (UGM), with the sole aim to internationally tarnish the image of IPOB, so as to make it near impossible for them to be provided with diplomatic tools by any country. Furthermore, the infiltration of IPOB was to gain understanding of its workability. And to their joy, they discovered the centrality of the organization. In such a setup, when the Shepherd is hit, the sheep would scatter. They made it unbearable for Kanu to keep operating from the U.K. He moved by traversing many countries before finally landing in Kenya, with the hope of shaking off those that included him in a list of targets of military-grade surveillance tools. It took them little time to locate him in Kenya and then tipped off Kenya’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) – an organization that has its origin from a Special Branch created by Britain in 1952 – anonymously that he is one of the sponsors of Al Shabaab. He was abducted and tortured, until they discovered that he is innocent, and holds a British passport. NIS contacted the U.K., not knowing that Nigeria’s National Intelligence Agency (NIA) had already been notified too, who then told NIS that the man they are holding is wanted in Nigeria. Britain pledged not to intervene in the rendition, and Buhari was informed, he immediately canceled his scheduled trip to the U.K to be on ground and witness it as ‘e dey hot.’ Kindly ignore Malami’s “interception and coordinating with Interpol” bunkum.
Funnily, when the news broke, Britain made the most laughable statements in International Relations. First, they said they are “seeking clarifications from Nigeria about the arrest” and then “would provide consular assistance” to Kanu, who happens to be one of their citizens. This is hilarious to say the least, because Kenya and Nigeria committed international crime and must be treated with the urgency it requires. For a start, if Britain wants to seek clarification, it should not be from Nigeria but Kenya, since Kanu was abducted there. But, they did not do that for obvious reasons: The tip-off came from them. How would they go about asking Kenya to clarify an incident they engineered? The arrest of Roman Protasevich and the immediate reactions from the West is an illustrated example on how such international crime is treated. In May, Protasevich – a Belarusian dissident – boarded Ryanair from Athens (where he had been hiding from President Alexander Lukashenka who declared he wanted) to Vilnius. On its way, there was a bomb scare in the plane, and the pilot was tricked to land in Minsk (the nearest airport) before the bomb would explode. On landing in Minsk, Belarusian security agents invaded the plane, arrested Protasevich and his girlfriend, and asked the pilot to continue their journey to Lithuania. As the news broke, Western governments, from London to Paris, Berlin to Washington and Toronto reacted immediately. Britain did not seek for clarification from Belarus, they immediately banned Belavia from using the U.K. airspace. The European Union (EU) followed by doing the same. They also banned their own airlines from using Belarusian airspace. Furthermore, Britain and EU imposed excruciating economic sanctions against Belarus’ economy, including a total of 166 persons and 15 entities. It is worthy to note that Protasevich is neither a British, French, German nor American citizen. In fact, Belarus is not a member of EU, and he was not abducted in a third country, unlike Kanu’s (a British citizen), but Britain reacted immediately without seeking for clarification from Belarus or Greece.
In brief, the continued detention of Kanu and the subsequent trial in a kangaroo court, while Britain keeps seeking “clarification” from Nigeria, instead of slapping them and Kenya with economic sanctions for committing international crime, undermines the West’s credibility. And it makes them lack the moral right in raising human rights issues, posing as bastions of democracy, champions of freedom of speech, and defenders and promoters of rule of law.
– July 31, 2021 @ 2:19 GMT /
Tags: By Slik Mgbeahurike Exposing UK's role in Nnamdi kanu's abduction Nnamdi Kanu
