NewsRescue.com

Why Nnamdi Kanu And His Sympathisers Are Very Wrong, By Rotimi Fabiyi

NewsRescue

Nwanekaennyi Okwu-Kanu

NewsRescue

By Engr Rotimi Fabiyi,

On 18th October, 2015, it was officially announced on several news media in Nigeria and beyond that a certain man named Nnamdi kanu (who is the leader of the illegal secessionist group named Indigenous people of Biafra, IPOB which is agitating for the excision of Anambra State, Ebonyi State, Enugu State, Imo State, Abia State, Cross River State, Rivers State, Delta State, Edo State, Kogi State, Benue State, Akwa Ibom State, Bayelsa State, and southern Ondo State into a country that will be named Biafra) has been arrested by Nigerian’s Department Of State Security, DSS after he was apprehended in a room at Golden Tulip Essential Hotel, Ikeja, Lagos State, Nigeria while performing coitus with 2 prostitutes even though his United Kingdom-based wife Uchechi Okwu Kanu was six-month pregnant for him at that time.

Nnamdi Kanu (whose real name is actually Nwannekaenyi Okwu Kanu but who gave himself the forename “Nnamdi” and stuck with it due to his admiration for late Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe) has been in hiding for weeks prior to his arrest because of been declared wanted by the Department of State Security due to his many crimes, some of which include

  1. operating an illegal short wave radio station named Radio Biafra (102.1MHz frequency) from which he delivered several hate speeches
  2. entering Nigeria from United Kingdom without a traveling passport
  3. frequently calling (on Radio Biafra) Nigeria a zoo filled with wild animals that he will soon slaughter en masse if Nigeria as a country does not willingly let Biafra secede
  4. calling Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari a pedophile on the same illegal Radio Biafra
  5. openly declaring during a chat with some journalists in North Ireland that he has assembled a team of bomb-makers that will supply him enough bombs to pulverize Nigeria if Nigeria refuses to peacefully grant Biafra
  6. openly declaring in an interview with Sahara Reporters TV that “… if they ( i.e Nigeria) fail to give us (i.e Nigerian Igbos) Biafra, Somalia will look like a paradise …” which means he has plans to plunge Nigeria into another civil war that he believes in his wildest imagination will reduce Nigeria to the condition of the war-ravaged Somalia
  7. openly demanding guns and bullets from attendees at the World Igbo Congress (held in Los Angeles, California, USA on 5th September, 2015, and at which he was a guest speaker) to help him “… fight Nigeria to give him Biafra …”
  8. openly saying that ”… Nigeria will be burnt to the ground if Biafra is not granted…” during another chat with journalists in North Ireland
  9. declaring in the same video chat that “… I will show Nigeria the violence it has never before seen…”
  10. stating in another video interview that “… I am going to undo 56 years of Yoruba lies and deceits by killing so many of them …”
  11. declaring in the same interview that “… Ojukwu lost Biafra War in 1970 because he did not have enough bombs; now in 2015, I have enough bombs to defeat Nigeria …”
  12. stating in the same video that “… I am assembling the finest fighters in the world that will bomb the zoo (Nigeria) to the ground…”
  13. stating in another video interview with journalists that ”… if they (i.e Nigeria) don’t give us Biafra, all Yorubas and Hausas in Nigeria will perish…”
  14. discovery of large sums of money in his bank accounts which were all recently deposited by “anonymous donors”, plausibly to help him in the purchase of weapons he so much craved for to attack Nigeria.
  15. declaring in an interview that ”… Cross River State, Rivers State, Delta State, Edo State, Kogi State, Benue State, Akwa Ibom State, Bayelsa State, and southern Ondo State are our Biafran territory. If they don’t willingly go with us, we will bomb them to submission …”
  16. declaring yet again that “ … Nigerians know I’m coming to destroy them, that’s why they keep praying and fasting and I’m praying to God that as soon as they kneel down to pray and fast, let them die from there …”

A short legal analysis of these statements and acts of Nnamdi Kanu (who is a drop-out of University Of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeria) will clearly show that he has

  1. offended under Section 366(a) of Nigerian’s Criminal Code Act CAP C38. Laws Of The Federation, 2004 which states that ”… anybody that threatens such other person with injury to his person, reputation, or property, or to the person, reputation, or property of anyone in whom he is interested … is liable on conviction to imprisonment for one year…”
  2. offended under Section 376 of Criminal Code Act CAP C38. Laws Of The Federation, 2004 which states that “… any person who published … a defamatory matter, with the intent to … induce any person to give … any benefit of any kind is liable to imprisonment for seven years…”
  3. offended under Section 516, Subsection 1 of the selfsame Criminal Code Act CAP C38 which states that ”… any person who … conspires with another to do any act … which if done … would be felony … is liable … to imprisonment for seven years …”
  4. offended under Section 62, Subsection 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f) and 2(g) of Criminal Code Act CAP C38 which jointly states that “… a society is an unlawful society… if formed for … levying war or encouraging or assisting any person to levy war on the government or the inhabitants of any part of Nigeria or… killing or injuring or encouraging the killing or injuring of any person or… destroying or injuring or encouraging the destruction or injuring of any property or… subverting or promoting the subversion of the Government or of its officials or… committing or inciting to acts of violence or intimidation or… interfering with, or resisting, or encouraging interference with or resistance to the administration of the law or… disturbing or encouraging the disturbance of peace and order in any part of Nigeria…” and Section 63 of Criminal Code Act CAP C38 which states that … any person who manages or assists in the management of an unlawful society … is liable to imprisonment for seven years…”
  5. offended under Section 37, Subsection 2 of Criminal Code Act CAP C38 which states that ”… any person conspiring with any person… to levy war against … Nigeria (i.e conspiring to commit terrorist acts against Nigeria), is guilty of treason and is liable to the punishment of death …”
  6. offended under Section 190A of Criminal Code Act CAP C38 which states that “… any person who for the purpose of … travelling passport … makes … a statement which is false … is liable to imprisonment for one year…”
  7. contravened Section 227 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which states that ”… no association shall…organise… any person or group of persons for the purpose of enabling them to be employed for the use or display of physical force or coercion in promoting any… interest… in such a manner as to arouse reasonable apprehension…”
  8. contravened Section 2, Subsection 1 of Nigerian Constitution which states that ”… Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria …”

Despite the clarity of Nnamdi Kanu’s crimes and the appropriate punishments under Nigerian laws (both the Criminal Code Act CAP C38. Laws Of The Federation, 2004 and 1999 Constitution Of The Federal Republic Of Nigeria), the official announcement of his arrest on 18th October, 2015 and his almost immediate arraignment (for the charges of (i) illegally entering into Nigeria (ii) conspiracy to incite violence, and (iii) being the leader of an unlawful society or group) at Magistrate Court, Wuse Zone II, Abuja FCT, Nigeria were promptly manipulated into objects of propaganda by some uncanny elements by cunningly suggesting that Nnamdi Kanu committed no offence at all and was just being persecuted by the Nigerian government for no reason so much so that while Nnamdi Kanu’s lawyer (Vincent Obetta) was trying to secure bail for him at the law court (the bail application was completely rejected), some rabble-rousing Biafran sympathisers arranged “mass protests” in support of Nnamdi Kanu (who was once a member of MASSOB and who, according to Ralph Uwazuake the MASSOB leader, was later expelled from the organization because of his extreme views, some of which included his suggestion that MASSOB should unleash terrorist acts like bombing and mass shootings on Nigerians) by Igbo indigenes across several states in Nigeria chiefly domiciled by Igbos or which are indigenous to Igbos (i.e Delta State, Enugu State, Cross River State , Enugu State, Abia State, Imo State, Anambra State, Akwa Ibom State, Rivers State) though it should be noted that other ethnic groups in these states (the Efik and Ibibio of Cross River State, the Ijaws and Ogonis of Rivers State, etc) almost immediately openly distanced themselves from the “mass protests” or any struggle for any secessionist country named Biafra because, according to these ethnic groups, they are Nigerians (not Biafrans ) and are proud of the fact.

The “mass protests” initially started peacefully but as the days rolled by and Nnamdi Kanu continued to be remanded in the airtight custody of the Department of State Security (because Nigerian law stipulates that anybody arraigned in court for terrorism charges, i.e treason, should never be granted bail until convicted or acquitted), the “mass protests” took the turn for the ugly on 23rd November, 2015 when the “protesters” started taking the laws into their hands by blocking the vehicular movement in most parts of Onitsha, Anambra State, Nigeria and subsequently proceeding to burn down a mosque in that same Onitsha after beating up the Hausa muslims praying in the mosque (which are both offences punishable by Section 206 of Criminal Code Act CAP C38 which states that ”… any person who willfully … disturbs any meeting of persons lawfully assembled for worship, or assault …. any person there assembled… is liable for imprisonment for two months…” and Section 443 of the Criminal Code Act CAP C38 which states that “…any person who willfully and unlawfully sets fire to any … building or structure…, whether completed or not is liable to imprisonment for life…”). Few days after this, the “protesters” attempted to block the vehicular traffic on the massive bridge on River Niger at Onitsha (which was an offence under Section 234(b) of Criminal Code Act CAP C38 which states that “… any person who prevents the public from having access to any part of a highway… is liable to imprisonment for two years …”) but were peacefully dissuaded from this their intention by policemen and soldiers guarding the bridge but when some of the “protesters” attempted to assault and disarm the policemen and soldiers, the latter had no choice than to open fire on the crowd of “protesters”, killing 14 of them on the spot.

During the course of the court trial of Nnamdi Kanu meanwhile, the DSS requested the Magistrate Court, Wuse Zone II to discontinue the trial of Nnamdi Kanu pursuant to Section 251, Subsection 2 of the Nigerian Constitution which states that “… the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction and power in respect of treason, treasonable felony and allied offences …” which means that the magistrate court initially handling the case lacked jurisdiction on a case of such gravity. After deeply considering this fact, the case against Nnamdi Kanu was allowed to be withdrawn from Magistrate Court Wuse Zone II and was immediately filed again at Federal High Court, Abuja FCT because that was where it (the case) was supposed to be filed initially. This withdrawal of the case from the Magistrate Court by the DSS on 16th December, 2015 was promptly converted into another object of propaganda by Nnamdi Kanu’s sympathizers who speedily disseminated a lot of false information solemnly insinuating that Nnamdi Kanu had been cleared by the courts of all the charges brought against him by the DSS (and has therefore become a free man) while the fact remained that he still had a lot of cases to answer at the Federal High Court which has the jurisdiction to handle his case (as opposed to the Magistrate Court). The lies that Nnamdi Kanu has been freed by the courts of all charges brought against him by the DSS was so fast in spreading that there was a lot of celebration and jubilations by many of his sympathizers and supporters (especially in southeast Nigeria) even though the fact remained that he was still in DSS custody in continuation of his trial. So when it dawned on the jubilant supporters and sympathizers on the next day 17th December, 2015 that Nnamdi Kanu was still very much in DSS custody and still had several court cases to answer, many of them started misleadingly and wrongfully accusing the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Department of State Security of disobeying court order to the effect that Nnamdi Kanu should be released because of being free of all the charges initially brought against him.

It was while these false accusations were flying around by Nnamdi Kanu’s supporters and sympathizers that a certain United Kingdom member of parliament named Tom Elliot ( who was born in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland and who earned a Certificate in Agriculture from the Enniskillen College of Agriculture, United Kingdom) sponsored a “Motion For Biafra Independence” in the British House Of Commons. The motion (which was co-sponsored by another United Kingdom member of parliament named Danny Kinahan, also from Northern Ireland, and which was listened to by the British House Of Commons on 3rd December, 2015) showed that its sponsors want the British House Of Commons to recognize the calls for Biafran independence because the motion states in part that “… the sponsors want the British House Of Commons to recognise calls for independence of territories that constitute Biafran Republic and want the House to acknowledge that the Biafran issue could be improved with the cooperation of the Nigerian government by offering a referendum; and urge both the British Foreign Office and British Commonwealth Office to use its diplomatic strength to assist in the resolution of this matter…” After the hearing of the motion on that 3rd December, 2015, it was announced that it (the motion) will plausibly come up for debate anytime in January 2016 but what Mr Tom Elliot and Mr Danny Kinahan were and are still confused about is that the British Parliament, the British Foreign Office or the British Commonwealth Office have no iota of power to compel Nigeria to divide its own territory and offer such divided territory to a secessionist named Nnamdi Kanu through any referendum or otherwise because Nigeria is a sovereign country which is equal in recognition to United Kingdom at the formal level of the United Nation Organisation because Article 2, Section 1 of the Charter Of The United Nations states that ”… the United Nations Organization is based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its [country] members …” while Article 2, Section 4 of the same Charter Of The United Nations states that ”… all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat [of force] or use of force against the territorial integrity of political independence of any [country] …” In other words, Tom Elliot , MP and Danny Kinahan , MP that respectively sponsored and co-sponsored the above-explained motion in the British House Of Commons are just too politically-immature, too politically-ignorant and too miseducated about international law and international relations to understand that this their motion directly contravenes both Article 2, Section 1 and Article 2, Section 4 of the Charter Of The United Nations as explained above and it also shows that they are both mentally-lazy politicians who are not used to tidying up their facts before coming to the public to subject themselves to ridicule because if they have ever heard of Article 1, Section 1 of the Charter Of The United Nations (which states that ”… the purpose of the United Nations are… to take effective control measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace …”), they would have wisely and sensibly distanced themselves from Nnamdi Kanu ( who, before his arrest by the DSS, daily to threatened to kill and bomb as many Nigerians as possible in his effort to actualize his Biafra) and his Biafra scheme because everything Nnamdi Kanu said or did in his effort to actualize Biafra directly contravened Aritcle 1, Section 1 of the Charter Of The United Nations (as stated above) so my simple advice for Mr Tom Elliot , MP (who was once a British soldier and who is still an expert in agriculture ) is to focus his attention on sponsoring motions which affect British Army and British agriculture while my advice for Mr Danny Kinahan , MP (who was once a captain in the British Army and who is still an antiques expert) is to co-sponsor motions which affect British Army and British antiquities because both of these politicians are novices in international relations, international law and political fact-checking.

Article 2, Section 7 of the Charter Of The United Nations clearly states that ”…nothing contained in the present charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any [country] or shall require the members [of the United Nations] to submit such matters for settlement under the present charter …” but some Biafra sympathizers and supporters have continuously suggested that Nnamdi Kanu can still have his way with his Biafra scheme the way South Sudan had its way by successfully splitting from Sudan in 2011, the way Eritrea had its way by successfully splitting from Ethiopia in 1993, and the way East Timor had its way by successfully splitting from Indonesia in 2002 but many of the disciples of this theory are clearly not aware that United Nations had no option but to intervene in Sudan (and the result was a referendum that led to the emergence of South Sudan as a recognized country in 2011) because Sudan proved itself incapable of handling both the First Sudanese Civil War and the Second Sudanese Civil War which ferociously raged for a cumulative 20 years, claimed millions of lives, and turned millions more to refugees which means that Sudan was clearly too weak to handle the “… matters … essentially within [its] domestic jurisdiction …” (contrary to Article 2, Section 7 of the Charter Of The United Nations ) so much so that the United Nations had step in to stop the seemingly endless bloodshed. The United Nations likewise had no option but to intervene in Ethiopia (and the result was a referendum that led to the emergence of Eritrea as a recognized country carved out of Ethiopia in 1993) because Ethiopia proved itself hopelessly incapable of handling the Eritrean Uprising (also known as Eritrean War Of Independence) which raged non-stop for 30 solid years, claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in that sparsely-populated country, and turned several hundred thousand Ethiopians to refugees which means that Ethiopia was too ridiculously weak to handle the “… matters … essentially within [its] domestic jurisdiction …” (contrary to Article 2, Section 7 of the Charter Of The United Nations ) so the United Nations had to step in to stop the seemingly unstoppable multiple murders. The same applied to Indonesia because the United Nations had no option but to intervene in Indonesia (and the result was a referendum that led to the emergence of East Timor as a recognized country independent of Indonesia in 2002) because Indonesia proved itself depressingly incapable of handling the FRETILIN Guerilla War which ceaselessly raged for 25 uninterrupted years, claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the sparsely-populated peninsula, and turned several hundred thousands more to refugees which means that Indonesia was too inordinately weak to handle the “… matters … essentially within [its] domestic jurisdiction …” (contrary to Article 2, Section 7 of the Charter Of The United Nations ) the United Nations had to step in to stop the seemingly unceasing killings.

As for Nigeria, the arrest and arraignment of Nnamdi Kanu by the DSS was legal and shows that the Federal Government of Nigeria is capable of handling “… matters which are essentially within [its] domestic jurisdiction …” pursuant to Article 2, Section 7 of the Charter Of The United Nations so those that think Nnamdi Kanu can still achieve his Biafra dream through the type of referendums United Nations sponsored in South Sudan, Eritrea, and East Timor should now know that Nnamdi Kanu’s Biafra dream will remain a pipe dream, a pie in the sky, a mirage, and a wild goose chase.

In essence, Nnamdi Kanu was very wrong because every step he took towards excising parts of Nigeria into a new country (that he claims will be called Biafra) contravenes so many national and international laws so much so that if he is convicted, he will have to face the maximum penalty of death sentence pursuant to Section 37, Subsection 2 of the Criminal Code Act CAP C38. Laws Of The Federation, 2004. His lawyer Vincent Obetta has been very wrong because his effort to get him (Nnamdi Kanu) out on bail from detention will continue to fail because persons facing court charges of treason or treasonable felony are never granted bail but are to be remanded in custody till they are either acquitted or convicted. The “mass protesters” demonstrating in favour of Nnamdi Kanu were very wrong because many of their actions during the so-called “peaceful protests” broke some national laws that could get some of them into jail for life. The two United Kingdom members of parliament (Tom Elliot and Danny Kinahan) were both simultaneously very wrong because the motion they respectively sponsored and co-sponsored at the British House Of Commons (requesting the House to recognize Biafra) not only exposed them as political novices but also as being ignorant of international law. Nnamdi Kanu’s sympathizers that convinced themselves that the United Nations can come to Nigeria and sponsor the type of referendums arranged in Sudan, Ethiopia, and Indonesia (that respectively led to the recognition of new countries like South Sudan, Eritrea, and East Timor) are very wrong because the detrimental circumstances that warranted United Nations’ intervention in the aforementioned countries do not exist in Nigeria because Nigeria is capable of handling “… matters which are essentially within [its] domestic jurisdiction …” pursuant to Article 2, Section 7 of the Charter Of The United Nations. Nothing needs to be further said about why Nnamdi Kanu and his sympathizers are very wrong

Engr Rotimi Fabiyi, MNIM, MNSChE, MNSE, COREN Reg,

P.O Box 1709, Ikorodu Town,Lagos State, Nigeria

fabiyirotimi@yahoo.com

twitter@fabiyi_rotimi

08184741410,08157957646, 08129698326

whatsapp@ 08184741410, 08157957646, 08129698326

 

Exit mobile version