The signs are already there that the word “Biafra” is likely to take Igbo Nation to a desolate place, if not set aside. As revealed in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, the word “Biafra” does not meet International Law (see Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States) and United Nations (UNDRIP) criteria for getting self-determination. Therefore those who call themselves “Biafra agitators” whether they aresadly, the victims of deception, or are themselves the deceivers, really ought to be referred to as “fake activists”.
Still more, it is one thing for little children to believe in Father Christmas and to expect him to come on 24th December night, but it is quite alarming for adults to believe “Biafra will come” when they have seen no evidence of any work done for it, plus can read for themselves that the word “Biafra” fails when it comes to satisfying self-determination criteria. What is quite certain is that those claiming to bring self-determination for Igbos by using the word “Biafra” have only one thing in mind. They want POWER OVER OTHERS (and the money that comes with it) so they gather up a following by manipulating the very strong emotions that some people have for that word. They are ruthless, and without conscienceover the damage they cause the people who accept their lies as truth, and put their hopes of freedom on them. It is all quite a pitiful situation. Moreover, it signals danger ahead for Igbo Nation which will be very briefly explained.
The key to grasping the danger that “Biafra promisers” represent is in their desire for UNMERITED POWER. Having to employ lies, frauds and even deadly violence, does not in any way discourage them. They press on: daily promoting the word “Biafra”.
Using South Africa as an illustration, Black people hadwanted freedom from the evil system of Apartheid. Jacob Zuma was one of the ANC leaders who fought for the decommissioning of the Apartheid Constitution, and for self-determination for Black people. When South Africa started a new dispensation those who led the anti-Apartheid fight were rewarded by being President, turn-by-turn. There were several misgivings when it now came the turn for Zuma to become President because there had been allegations of corruption, plus his womanising revealed indiscipline: signs that he lacked the character needed to take South Africa to a great future. Sure enough, South Africa began to diminish under President Zuma. It became known for corruption, and violence including Xenophobic violence against other Africans. Zuma was criticised for if not supporting it, at least not doing enough to stop those killings. More recently, when Zuma was convicted for corruption, it was his supporters in his home province who carried out the violent riots anddisgraceful looting. Many had always thought that Zuma should never have been allowed to lead South Africa. He wanted POWER, and he schemed to get it, and was able to manipulate his followers, who we can see are quick to use deadly violence against their own people.
Now, looking at South Sudan: once they got freedom from (Arab) Sudan, problems started from Riek Machar who wanted POWER. He had been a leader in the fight for freedom and self-determination, and so had Salva Kiir. Kiirbecame President but Machar’s craving for power made him a rival who would not rest until he was recognised with high enough power, even if it meant war in the new country of South Sudan. To get power hungry Machar to stop warring, President Kiir had to form an unsteady Unity Government, and make Machar his Vice.
The brief outlines above relate to how “Biafra promisers”,power-hungry individuals who use deceit, have entered the Igbo clamour for self-determination and freedom. They will be there, under false pretence, acting as “leaders” of something, appropriating to themselves work they have not done, copying the tone and format of the NINAS Movement (the authentic self-determination movement), and claiming fake victories.
There will always be a price to pay for any community that accepts open lies (eg, that the word “Biafra” can ever bring them self-determination), and where adults accept fantasy and daydreaming as reality. Igbo Nation is already paying the price with the lynchings (by burning), full castrations, torture and deadly violence brought to them by the Biafra street gang called IPOB. They are also facing destruction of their shops and stalls for refusing the IPOB command to sit-at-home in honour of their gang leader who is on remand. Thus, it is clearly POWER over Igbo Nation that IPOB gang want, not self-determination for Igbos. In lawless Nigeria, it would not be surprising if other “Biafra” groups also transformthemselves into street gangs, each using violence to becomewarlord rulers of Igbo land.
Igbo Nation can protect itself against the desolation that “Biafra promisers” would bring upon it. It would take being sober, and being willing to accept truth when it is revealed. Igbos have been seeking self-determination since 1967. It is a journey. Sometimes only one vehicle is needed to get to adestination. However, there are some journeys where there are several stops with changes of vehicle before getting to the desired destination. Such is the case for Igbos. In 1967 the vehicle had been “Biafra”. “Biafra” was unable to reach thedesired destination. Now there is another vehicle that Igbos can enter. The vehicle today is the NINAS Movement, other passengers being the indigenous ethnic nations of the New South (Yoruba, Middle Belt and South-South). The NINAS Movement would end the power-craving fakery of “Biafra promisers” to deceive Igbos, and happily, Igbos and their neighbour ethnic nations would be nearing the end of the journey to self-determination, at combined Stages 14 and 15, out of 16 Stages.
Ndidi Uwechue is a British citizen with Igbo heritage from the Lower Niger Bloc. She is a retired Metropolitan (London) Police Officer, she is a signatory to the Constitutional Force Majeure, and she writes from Abuja.g