Half-Truths: African Stream’s Misrepresentations of The IPOB Peaceful Self-Determination Struggle

Half-Truths: African Stream’s Misrepresentations of The IPOB Peaceful Self-Determination Struggle   While 'African Stream' has ack...

Half-Truths: African Stream’s Misrepresentations of The IPOB Peaceful Self-Determination Struggle

 

While 'African Stream' has acknowledged some truths about the historical suffering of Biafra at the hands of Britain and Nigeria, it has marred its reporting by misrepresenting critical aspects of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, particularly regarding his departure from Nigeria in 2017 while on bail. 

It is imperative to address these misconceptions, especially from a purportedly pan-Africanist media outlet that has failed in its journalistic duty. Thorough verification of information before publication is a cornerstone of credible reporting. Thus, African Stream and its audience must be corrected and advised on the following points: 

1. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu did not flee Nigeria or Jump Bail: The assertion that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu "fled" Nigeria while on bail is misleading and implies a deliberate act of evading justice. On September 17, 2017, Kanu’s ancestral home, the royal palace of his father, His Royal Majesty Israel Okwu Kanu, was violently attacked by a combined force of the Nigerian Army and mobile Police. This brutal assault resulted in the deaths of over 28 innocent supporters, including Kanu’s cousin and his pet dog, Jack. Tragically, both of Kanu’s royal parents later died due to the trauma and aftermath of this attack.  

Kanu narrowly escaped what was clearly an assassination attempt by Nigerian security forces. He committed no crime under the law to justify his arrest or such an extrajudicial attack. Neither Kanu nor his supporters were armed; they carried only placards and flags in peaceful protest. To characterize his escape as "fleeing" distorts the reality of a life-threatening attack orchestrated by state forces. 

2. Debunking Misrepresentations of Kanu’s Abduction from Kenya: The claim that Kanu’s family and lawyers merely "alleged" his abduction from Kenya is a weak attempt to downplay Nigeria’s role in an international crime. The Nigerian government, through its National Intelligence Agency (NIA) in collaboration with Kenyan authorities, abducted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu in Kenya and subjected him to extraordinary rendition to Nigeria. This act violated his fundamental human rights and international legal protocols and frameworks which Nigeria is a signatory.  

This is not a mere allegation but a verified fact. Initially, the Nigerian government falsely claimed Kanu’s "arrest" was facilitated by Interpol, a claim Interpol also publicly debunked. Subsequent investigations confirmed that Kanu was kidnapped in Kenya, tortured, starved, and illegally renditioned to Nigeria. African Stream’s framing of this incident as a mere claim undermines the gravity of Nigeria’s actions. 

3. False Claim: Kanu Never Ordered Simon Ekpa to Lead IPOB:

   African Stream’s attempt to link Simon Ekpa, a known agent provocateur, to IPOB and Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is misleading and irresponsible. IPOB operates under a well-established leadership structure, the Directorate of State (DOS), which independently manages the organization’s daily activities, particularly in Kanu’s absence. Any claim that Kanu instructed Ekpa to lead IPOB is baseless, as Ekpa was never a member of IPOB. Associating Ekpa with IPOB is a deliberate misrepresentation that distorts the organization’s structure and objectives. Recently, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu during his cross examination trial was asked who was his liason in the self-determination quest and he mentioned no other than the movement’s Directorates Of States as his sole and authentic representative. 

4. The False Narrative of IPOB’s Sit-at-Home Orders:  

   African Stream’s portrayal of IPOB enforcing sit-at-home orders in Southeast Nigeria is inaccurate. The sit-at-home initiative was initially introduced as a peaceful protest following Kanu’s abduction. However, it was promptly discontinued within weeks, as directed by Kanu from his detention in the Department of State Services (DSS) facility. IPOB publicly announced the suspension of this initiative.  

The voluntary sit-at-home protests in the Southeast are a form of civil disobedience, adopted to avoid the violent crackdowns by Nigerian forces that have historically targeted peaceful protesters, as seen in 2016, 2017, and during the 2020 Lekki massacre during the #EndSARS protests. IPOB does not enforce sit-at-home orders; they are a voluntary act of solidarity by the people, reflecting their frustration with systemic oppression.  The enforcements of Sit-at-home has been certified to be recruited Nigerian agents provocateurs sponsored to hid the guise of Biafra agitation to commit despicable crimes and IPOB since inception has continued to dissociate itself from these band of reprobates. 

Furthermore, claims of 700 deaths caused by IPOB are entirely unfounded. On the contrary, Nigerian armed forces and politically motivated actors have been responsible for the ongoing violence against Eastern Nigerians, continuing the ethnic persecution that began with the 1966 pogroms. IPOB remains a non-violent organization and bears no responsibility for alleged deaths or enforced sit-at-home directives. 

In Conclusion:

Accurate reporting on IPOB’s affairs is critical to avoid spreading falsehoods that undermine its legitimate struggle. IPOB is a peaceful self-determination movement, legally recognized in over 150 sovereign countries. The right to self-determination is an inalienable right of the Biafran people, encompassing their political, religious, and socioeconomic aspirations. African Stream must refrain from publishing unverified claims to maintain its credibility and relevance as a media outlet in the resuscitated quest to entrench Pan Africanism following subtly demise of western neocolonialism in Africa.

Family Writers Press International