IPOB Twitter Space: Summary of The Event of Sunday August 24, 2025

 IPOB Twitter Space: Summary of The Event of Sunday August 24, 2025 Topic: Why We Demand for Self Governance | Is Self-Determination Legitim...

 IPOB Twitter Space: Summary of The Event of Sunday August 24, 2025

Topic: Why We Demand for Self Governance | Is Self-Determination Legitimate? | If Yes, Why Did Nigeria Proscribe IPOB?

OBJECTIVE 

The sole aim of the space program was to avail the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) the opportunity to interact, converse and debate across board. IPOB desires to engage the indigenous tribes in Nigeria; she believes that the only way out of the quagmire in Nigeria is to have a platform that will grant unhindered access to all shades of opinion —both pro and anti-IPOB. This is in line with the age long desire of her leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, who solicited debate from Nigerians as a precondition for cessation of agitation if defeated; yet, no one accepted the chicken leg.

Why We Demand for Self Governance

Speaker after speaker identified historical, cultural and political differences as the crux of the matter of ‘why the demand for self-governance.’ It was laid bare that Biafrans as egalitarian society rooted in merit-based culture will not fit into a quota system preferred Nigeria. Historically, the possession of egalitarian spirit is a source of envy and hatred from other tribes in Nigeria as demonstrated by Ahmadu Bello in his infamous interview of April 16, 1964. Politically, the regional government under Micheal Okpara competed among equals globally. It topped every Human Development Index (HDI). Painfully, the political realities of today makes being part of Nigeria an existential threat. There is a coordinated profiling of Biafrans, militarization of Biafra region (Eastern Nigeria), anti-Biafran people economic policy intended to stunt growth, etc. We simply want to be in charge of our destiny and control our mineral resources.

Is Self Determination Legitimate?

There is a general consensus about the legitimacy of self-determination. There is no contention about the inalienable right indigenous people possess to determine their future. Infact, article 1, paragraph 2 of United Nations charter specifically says, quote: ‘To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.” So, in general, self-determination is supported by both local and international laws. This is because Nigeria is signatory to the UN charter and subsequently domesticated the law. This was not a bone of contention to any speaker.

However, some anti-IPOB speakers cited article 2, paragraph 4 to condemn IPOB. That paragraph explicitly said, quote: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." They claimed that by creating the Eastern Security Network (ESN), the Nigerian territorial integrity is threatened by IPOB. Upon examination and scrutiny, notable speakers faulted that line of argument.

It was made clear that the Nigerian government, through an exparte order, proscribed IPOB in 2017 whereas ESN was created in 2020. The illegal proscription of IPOB and the child of necessity called ESN are parallel events that are unrelated. References were made to the Intelligence Report of Intelligence Agencies including CIA, MI6 and other sister agencies both locally and internationally concerning the collaborative engagement between bokoharam and Al-Qaeda, and how they were spreading from northern Nigeria to the South through the creation of other organizations like the Fulani Jihadists herdsmen. The herdsmen were/are notorious for barbarism, swimming in an ocean of innocent blood from 2015 that the dead Buhari assumed power till date. It was their killing with impunity and the helplessness of the Igbo political class that resulted in Mazi Nnamdi Kanu formation of ESN. 

What has happened is that Nigerian government has activated the play book of governments world over in their blackmail of every nonviolent Self-Determination movement. It is a twin method of ‘infiltration and polarization.’ The Nigerian government made an effort to convince IPOB to hand over ESN. But knowing the chameleonic nature of Nigerian politicians of Biafran extraction, she declined. Next, they tried to infiltrate the movement and implode it. Once that too failed, they activated polarization method. That is the creation of a criminal look-alike group. That is central to the blackmail of ESN and what IPOB is battling.

The summary of that debate was that article 51 supports fully the formation of ESN which is a vigilante group created primarily to safeguard Biafran forests and farm lands; secure our organic or natural farmers from being killed in the farms or our women from being raped by the uncultured Fulani terrorists. The article 51 says, quote: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Rhetoric 

For some, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu made speeches they considered offensive or even problematic. Some of such submissions were innocent deceptions from listening to cutout audio phrases of his broadcast that lacked context while others were deliberate misrepresentation of events. In keeping with the aim of the program, the host and co-hosts accepted that perhaps it was more realistic, going forward, to admit that neither Mazi Nnamdi Kanu nor IPOB were perfect, and as such must have made mistakes. They insisted that as a reputable organization, it is only natural for mistakes to be made, accepted and efforts made to improve. Furthermore, they argued that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s use of strong words or sentence stemmed from his love for his people and the knowledge of the danger lurking ahead; knowing how stubborn our people can be moved to act without the use of such bluntness.

In general, it was agreed that certain remarks attributed to him were deliberate misleading cutout audio lasting a few seconds in a broadcast that could be over 6 hours. Hence, it was very unlikely that someone who loves his people to a fault, even to the extent of paying ultimate price for them, would give a command to have them killed —the same people he and members of the organization he leads continue to pay the ultimate price for. The space conversation offered an opportunity for deep reflection and introspection, with the downstream benefit being the uncomfortable truth that some individuals felt the method of delivery of the message was inconvenient while accepting that the message itself was a universal truth. The climax of that debate was the clarification by an anti-IPOB speaker that even though he was not pro IPOB, nevertheless he would vote to end Nigeria should a referendum present itself.

If Self Determination Is Legitimate, Why Did Nigeria Proscribe IPOB?

As pointed out earlier, it was noted that IPOB has maintained absolute nonviolence approach to self determination even in the face of Nigerian security brutality. The evidence are verifiable and irrefutable —whether from independent organizations like InterSociety or Amnesty International, etc. Despite the legitimacy of adoption and activation of self defense, IPOB continues to pursue nonviolent Self-Determination as encapsulated by the UN charter. While the process leading to the proscription of IPOB was illegal and unconstitutional, surprisingly the members of Bokoharam and other terror organizations are pardoned, giving state feast and reintegrated into the society. In a nutshell, it shows the proclivity of Nigeria to be lawless and her inability to ever pretend to be lawful —citing the refusal of Nigerian government to obey her own Court of Appeal ‘discharged and acquitted’ order as a case study.

In conclusion, one important highlight of why IPOB insists and presses on with nonviolence, some speakers pointed out, is in the interview he granted Al Jazeera. In the interview he made it clear that under no circumstance will IPOB abandon nonviolence and pick arms. One speaker reasoned that the reason for that submission from Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was because he knew that a war had been fought but has not been concluded. Therefore, IPOB demands referendum to have the war finally settled. Another speaker also pointed out that the lawless of Nigeria is directly proportional to cessation of that war. It simply means that a ceasefire was implemented; which is a temporary stoppage of hostilities but not a long-term resolution. It simply means that an armistice was handed in delivering a “no victor, no vanquish” declaration. And this is why the three Rs of Reconciliation, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction component of that war was/is and will be violated by Nigeria with reckless abandon. That must change and the only way to correct that is by looking at the 100 years experiment of Nigeria founding since 1914 to 2014. That experiment has proven costly and Nigeria was not supposed to exist, and its existed currently is illegal as Nigeria has expired. Therefore, a referendum must be conducted or Nigeria should be dissolved while Biafra’s sovereignty should be restored.

Family Writers Press International