Nigeria hides under the principle of territorial integrity and non-interference in her internal affairs to perpetuate crime against humanity and ethnic cleansing against the South-East, Igbo population
How can Nigeria continue to argue that her sovereignty is indivisible over the issue of Biafra but handed over the bakassi peninsula to Cameroon? How can Nigeria lay claim to indivisibility of her territorial integrity where it has not observed the principle of equal rights, federal character principle, allowed sharia Law in the North but continue oppress the South-East Region and restrict them to only five states?
The Nigerian government uses the principle of indivisible sovereignty selectively. While it cites sovereignty to suppress Biafra’s self-determination, it relinquished sovereignty over Bakassi without consulting affected Nigerians or seeking a referendum.This is a clear loss of credibility, and these contradictions effectively undermine Nigeria’s moral and legal arguments. For example,
on the issue of Bakassi, Nigeria has set a precedent—By relinquishing Bakassi under international law, Nigeria implicitly acknowledges that territorial adjustments are possible where legitimate grievances exist.
The South-East region of Nigeria, predominantly inhabited by the Igbo-Biafrans, has long been subjected to heinous and monumental crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and systemic marginalisation perpetuated by the Nigerian state. Nigeria, hiding under the principles of territorial integrity and non-interference in domestic affairs, has weaponised these doctrines to sustain its oppressive grip on the Igbo-Biafra people. The pertinent question posed by Uche Mefor, Convenor of the Igbo-Biafra Nationalists and the Indigenous People of Igbo Nation for self-determination, remains: For how long will Nigeria exploit the principles of territorial integrity to continue to unleash human rights violations against the South-East region, the Igbo-Biafrans?
The situation has reached a point where meaningful dialogue and internal self-determination have been systematically blocked by the Nigerian state. The South-East, therefore, has no other option but to seek its self-preservation and future outside Nigeria through remedial secession. Nigeria’s consistent unwillingness and inability to address these grievances, coupled with its failure to uphold the principle of equal rights, renders this course of action both necessary and justified.
Crimes Against Humanity and Ethnic Cleansing
The Igbo-Biafra population has faced a sustained campaign of violence and persecution since the end of the Nigerian Civil War in 1970. These crimes, often state-sponsored or tolerated, include:
Ethnic Cleansing and Massacres: The killings of Igbos during the pogroms of the 1960s have not been adequately addressed, and similar atrocities continue under various guises. These acts constitute crimes against humanity under international law. Systematic Repression: The state has employed military operations, arbitrary detentions, and extrajudicial killings to silence the Igbo-Biafra population. Peaceful demands for self-determination have been met with brutal force, leaving the population without recourse to justice. State-Sanctioned Discrimination: The exclusion of the South-East region from key political appointments, resource allocation, and infrastructural development reflects an institutionalised policy of marginalisation. Denial of Economic Opportunities: The deliberate neglect of the South-East’s economy, including policies that stifle industrial growth and commerce, serves as a means to weaken the region’s capacity to advocate for self-determination.
Nigeria’s Failure to Protect the South-East
Nigeria has demonstrated a blatant disregard for its constitutional duty to protect the lives, property, and rights of all its citizens. The Igbo-Biafra people are effectively excluded from the social contract that binds a population to the state, as evidenced by:
· Security Failures: The Nigerian state has either failed to protect the Igbo population from ethnic violence or has been complicit in such acts. This abdication of responsibility leaves the South-East defenceless.
Marginalisation in Governance: Nigeria’s political structure excludes the South-East from meaningful participation, ensuring that their voices remain unheard in decision-making processes.
Suppression of Legitimate Grievances: Efforts to seek redress through legal or political avenues have been met with hostility. Nigeria’s refusal to engage in dialogue underscores its unwillingness to resolve these grievances.
Territorial Integrity versus Human Rights
The principle of territorial integrity can not be used as a shield to justify oppression and human rights abuses. International law acknowledges that sovereignty resides with the people, and when a state fails to uphold its responsibilities, the oppressed population has the right to seek self-determination. Nigeria has forfeited its moral and legal claim to territorial integrity over the South-East region by its actions, which include:
Violating Fundamental Rights: The Nigerian state has breached international treaties, such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantee the rights to life, dignity, and self-determination. Obstructing Internal Self-Determination: By refusing to implement federal restructuring or autonomy for the South-East, Nigeria has denied the Igbo-Biafra people their right to govern themselves within the federation. Perpetuating Inequality : Nigeria’s governance system is structurally designed to disenfranchise the South-East, violating the principle of equal rights enshrined in the UN Charter.
The Case for Remedial Secession
Remedial secession arises when a state is unwilling or unable to protect a part or the whole of her population from severe injustices, leaving them no choice but to seek independence as a means of survival. For the South-East region, remedial secession is justified because:
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Success!
Almost finished…
We need to confirm your email address.
To complete the process, please follow the instructions in the email we just sent you.
Error!
There was a problem processing your submission. Please try again later.
The Nigerian State is Incapable of Reform: Decades of marginalisation and human rights violations prove that the Nigerian state is either unwilling or incapable of addressing the grievances of the South-East
Self-Preservation is Paramount:
The survival of the Igbo-Biafra people is under threat within the Nigerian framework. Independence becomes a matter of necessity to protect their future.
Legal and Political Avenues Have Been Exhausted: Nigeria’s refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue or consider internal solutions leaves the South-East with no option but to seek external recourse.
In closing, Nigeria has consistently used the principles of territorial integrity and non-interference as tools of oppression, enabling it to commit monumental human rights violations against the South-East region and Igbo people. These principles can not be absolute when a state fails in its primary duty to protect its population. The South-East region, the Igbo-Biafrans, must act to secure their self-preservation and future through remedial secession. The international community must recognise that when a state perpetuates systemic injustices, denies fundamental rights, and obstructs all avenues of dialogue, the oppressed are entitled to seek liberation. This is not merely a political choice; it is a moral and legal imperative for the survival and dignity of the South-East region and its people.
Uche Mefor is the Convenor of the Igbo-Biafra Nationalists and the Indigenous People of Igbo Nation for Self-Determination
ADVERTISEMENT
Source link : https://allafrica.com/stories/202412270067.html
Author :
Publish date : 2024-12-27 03:55:27
