The recent comments by Peter Obi labelling former Head of State, General Gowon, as an 'enemy' to be 'forgiven' has emboldened many of his closet IPOB supporters who now wear the tag Obidients (which in reality is the political arm of the Indigenous People of Biafra movement) to revise history and make fallacious and salacious claims.

One such claim was made by a certain Onyekwelu, who asserts that Biafra has a legal claim to secede and is being extrajudicially held back in Nigeria by domestic and international powers, especially the British government.

But the truth is that by virtue of succeeding Nigerian Constitutions, beginning from the Independence Constitution of 1960, no part of Nigerians had or has a right to secede from the country named the Federal Republic of Nigeria. For that, we have Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe to thank if you believe in a united Nigeria, or blame if you support Biafran secession.

The idea for a secession clause was mooted by Chief Obafemi Awolowo in 1954 during the Lagos Constitutional Conference, but Nnamdi Azikiwe rejected it and galvanised a majority of the conference attendees to kill the idea.

After this was rejected, Chief Awolowo again wrote to the then Governor General of Nigeria, who rejected the clause on the grounds that the majority, led by Nnamdi Azikiwe, was not in support of it.

It was because of Nnamdi Azikiwe that section 86 was inserted into our constitution with the proviso that if any region should secede, it would be an act of treason.

Nnamdi Azikiwe himself wrote about this in an essay that was published by the New Nigerian Newspapers in 1975. It has since been republished by other papers and by Mr Azikiwe himself.

The funniest thing is that those now accusing the North of forcefully keeping them in Nigeria are unaware that the North actually supported Chief Awolowo for the inclusion of a secession clause.

The essay was republished under the title 'Why I opposed Awolowo on secession'. For the benefit of those who have been misled by the likes of Peter Obi and their fellow fantasists, I will now republish Mr. Nnamdi Azikiwe's essay word for word, without adding or removing anything.

'My opposition to secession

By Nnamdi Azikiwe

When the 1954 constitution conference started, my good friend, Chief Obafemi Awolowo tabled a motion to the effect that in the new constitution, provision should be made that any state which feels like seceding should do so. I was opposed to it and said ‘no’ and said that once we have a federation, we are indivisible and perpetual.

That was when we began to use that expression – ‘The Indivisibility and perpetuity of the federation’ – and that to secede would amount to treason. And so, a debate ensued.

The Secretary of State then was Oliver Littleton, later Lord Chandos and he was very much interested and that was his first time in saying that the people of African descent were people actually debating at a high level.

So a full day was given to Chief Awolowo to make his points. He spoke brilliantly as a lawyer. He made his points why secession should be incorporated in the Constitution. He cited the case of the Soviet Union which is a federation, and that secession is written there so that any state in the Soviet Union can secede at will. He also cited the case of Western Australia and eventually he finished his case and was applauded.

Lord Chandos said that on the face of the arguments before him it would be suicidal to incorporate secession in our constitution and that is why we have section 86 in our constitution that if any region or state should secede, then it will be an act of treason.

We adjourned. The next day, I had to reply. I availed myself of the opportunity to, well, demolish the arguments of my friend and I cited the case of United States which based its constitution on that of the Swiss Confederation. That is Switzerland. I pointed out a case, I think, that of Texas versus White, where Mr. Salmon Chase, the Chief Justice laid down the principle – he was really an arbiter – that the union was intended to be perpetual and indivisible and that any attempt to divide the union by secession was treasonable.

The North (NPC) supported Action Group. The question was then: Should we have secession? The Colonial Office came to our rescue. You know, the usual principle of Britain – ‘divide and rule’ (laughs) but this time, it was in our favour. So, the colonial office backed us.

Lord Chandos said that on the face of the arguments before him it would be suicidal to incorporate secession in our constitution and that is why we have section 86 in our constitution that if any region or state should secede, then it will be an act of treason and that was what led to this war, because Col. Ojukwu seceded and so violated the constitution."

Here ends the essay by Mr. Nnamdi Azikiwe.

Biafra would have had the legal right to secede if it had not been for Azikiwe.

Moreover, even before that conference, Mr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, in a speech he gave at a caucus meeting of the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons on Monday, May 12, 1953, threatened the Northern Region of a blockade and denial of access to the sea if they should attempt to secede from Nigeria.

His exact words were as follows:

"It may lead to economic nationalism in the Eastern Region, which can pursue a policy of blockade of the North by refusing it access to the sea, over and under the River Niger, except upon payment of tolls. It may lead to economic warfare between the North on the one hand, and the Eastern or Western regions on the other."

Those who would like to read the full speech of Mr. Azikiwe threatening the Northern Region can do so here: https://www.blackpast.org/global-african-history/1953-nnamdi-azikiwe-speech-secession/

On February 23, 1966, Isaac Adaka Boro declared the secession of the Niger Delta Republic from Nigeria. After he did this, there was outrage in the Eastern Region, which almost resulted in riots. Please go and research it. The then Head of State, Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi, quashed what he called the Isaac Boro mutiny using primarily troops of Eastern Nigeria origin.

When his 'rebellion' was crushed twelve days later, there was celebration in the Eastern Region. The other regions were not so enthused.

My question to you, Onyekwelu, is this: If Isaac Boro's declaration of the Niger Delta Republic was seen as a crime by the then Head of State, Major General Ironsi, and the Government of the Eastern Region headed by then Lt. Colonel Ojukwu (Isaac Boro's part of the Niger-Delta was then under Eastern Nigeria), why should the declaration of the Republic of Biafra be seen as lawful?

Lt. Colonel Emeka Ojukwu himself was the military Governor of Eastern Nigeria who first moved against Isaac Boro with the assistance of the Ironsi central government. If both Ojukwu and Ironsi fought Isaac Boro for attempting to secede from Eastern Nigeria and Nigeria, why are some of Peter Obi's supporters blaming Gowon and Nigeria for fighting Colonel Ojukwu when he declared Biafra?

Reno Omokri

Gospeller. Deep Thinker. #TableShaker. Ruffler of the Feathers of Obidents. #1 Bestselling author of Facts Versus Fiction: The True Story of the Jonathan Years. Hodophile. Hollywood Magazine Humanitarian of the Year, 2019. Business Insider Influencer of the Year 2022.

Ok

People like to talk nonsense. Nigeria is just the colonial experiment of the British, it was not of our making. The name "Nigeria" was even created in London by a British woman

Granted that Nigeria has been created, and the British have long gone back home, it is the job of us the Indigenous People to ask hard questions

Is Nigeria working?

Is Nigeria built on equity, fairness and justice?

Do people have a sense of belonging in Nigeria?

Can people do better with or without Nigeria?

Talking about Awolowo, Zik or Ahamdu Bello, all of whom have been dead over 40 years is to dwell in the past. We are talking about now

Britain has no secession clause but Britain did this:

Granted Nigeria independence in 1960

Granted one it's constituency, Northern Ireland, referendum in 1972

Granted another constituency, Scotland, referendum in 2014

Left the EU with 2016 referendum

And yet a Nigerian that was created by the British is talking about 'unity by force', 'secession clause', 'one Nigeria forever'

And you think there will be peace, unty and progress based enforced union?

Who did this to us?

ardeks:
The recent comments by Peter Obi labelling former Head of State, General Gowon, as an 'enemy' to be 'forgiven' has emboldened many of his closet IPOB supporters who now wear the tag Obidients (which in reality is the political arm of the Indigenous People of Biafra movement) to revise history and make fallacious and salacious claims.

One such claim was made by a certain Onyekwelu, who asserts that Biafra has a legal claim to secede and is being extrajudicially held back in Nigeria by domestic and international powers, especially the British government.

But the truth is that by virtue of succeeding Nigerian Constitutions, beginning from the Independence Constitution of 1960, no part of Nigerians had or has a right to secede from the country named the Federal Republic of Nigeria. For that, we have Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe to thank if you believe in a united Nigeria, or blame if you support Biafran secession.

The idea for a secession clause was mooted by Chief Obafemi Awolowo in 1954 during the Lagos Constitutional Conference, but Nnamdi Azikiwe rejected it and galvanised a majority of the conference attendees to kill the idea.

After this was rejected, Chief Awolowo again wrote to the then Governor General of Nigeria, who rejected the clause on the grounds that the majority, led by Nnamdi Azikiwe, was not in support of it.

It was because of Nnamdi Azikiwe that section 86 was inserted into our constitution with the proviso that if any region should secede, it would be an act of treason.

Nnamdi Azikiwe himself wrote about this in an essay that was published by the New Nigerian Newspapers in 1975. It has since been republished by other papers and by Mr Azikiwe himself.

The funniest thing is that those now accusing the North of forcefully keeping them in Nigeria are unaware that the North actually supported Chief Awolowo for the inclusion of a secession clause.

The essay was republished under the title 'Why I opposed Awolowo on secession'. For the benefit of those who have been misled by the likes of Peter Obi and their fellow fantasists, I will now republish Mr. Nnamdi Azikiwe's essay word for word, without adding or removing anything.

'My opposition to secession

By Nnamdi Azikiwe

When the 1954 constitution conference started, my good friend, Chief Obafemi Awolowo tabled a motion to the effect that in the new constitution, provision should be made that any state which feels like seceding should do so. I was opposed to it and said ‘no’ and said that once we have a federation, we are indivisible and perpetual.

That was when we began to use that expression – ‘The Indivisibility and perpetuity of the federation’ – and that to secede would amount to treason. And so, a debate ensued.

The Secretary of State then was Oliver Littleton, later Lord Chandos and he was very much interested and that was his first time in saying that the people of African descent were people actually debating at a high level.

So a full day was given to Chief Awolowo to make his points. He spoke brilliantly as a lawyer. He made his points why secession should be incorporated in the Constitution. He cited the case of the Soviet Union which is a federation, and that secession is written there so that any state in the Soviet Union can secede at will. He also cited the case of Western Australia and eventually he finished his case and was applauded.

Lord Chandos said that on the face of the arguments before him it would be suicidal to incorporate secession in our constitution and that is why we have section 86 in our constitution that if any region or state should secede, then it will be an act of treason.

We adjourned. The next day, I had to reply. I availed myself of the opportunity to, well, demolish the arguments of my friend and I cited the case of United States which based its constitution on that of the Swiss Confederation. That is Switzerland. I pointed out a case, I think, that of Texas versus White, where Mr. Salmon Chase, the Chief Justice laid down the principle – he was really an arbiter – that the union was intended to be perpetual and indivisible and that any attempt to divide the union by secession was treasonable.

The North (NPC) supported Action Group. The question was then: Should we have secession? The Colonial Office came to our rescue. You know, the usual principle of Britain – ‘divide and rule’ (laughs) but this time, it was in our favour. So, the colonial office backed us.

Lord Chandos said that on the face of the arguments before him it would be suicidal to incorporate secession in our constitution and that is why we have section 86 in our constitution that if any region or state should secede, then it will be an act of treason and that was what led to this war, because Col. Ojukwu seceded and so violated the constitution."

Here ends the essay by Mr. Nnamdi Azikiwe.

Biafra would have had the legal right to secede if it had not been for Azikiwe.

Moreover, even before that conference, Mr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, in a speech he gave at a caucus meeting of the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons on Monday, May 12, 1953, threatened the Northern Region of a blockade and denial of access to the sea if they should attempt to secede from Nigeria.

His exact words were as follows:

"It may lead to economic nationalism in the Eastern Region, which can pursue a policy of blockade of the North by refusing it access to the sea, over and under the River Niger, except upon payment of tolls. It may lead to economic warfare between the North on the one hand, and the Eastern or Western regions on the other."

Those who would like to read the full speech of Mr. Azikiwe threatening the Northern Region can do so here: https://www.blackpast.org/global-african-history/1953-nnamdi-azikiwe-speech-secession/

On February 23, 1966, Isaac Adaka Boro declared the secession of the Niger Delta Republic from Nigeria. After he did this, there was outrage in the Eastern Region, which almost resulted in riots. Please go and research it. The then Head of State, Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi, quashed what he called the Isaac Boro mutiny using primarily troops of Eastern Nigeria origin.

When his 'rebellion' was crushed twelve days later, there was celebration in the Eastern Region. The other regions were not so enthused.

My question to you, Onyekwelu, is this: If Isaac Boro's declaration of the Niger Delta Republic was seen as a crime by the then Head of State, Major General Ironsi, and the Government of the Eastern Region headed by then Lt. Colonel Ojukwu (Isaac Boro's part of the Niger-Delta was then under Eastern Nigeria), why should the declaration of the Republic of Biafra be seen as lawful?

Lt. Colonel Emeka Ojukwu himself was the military Governor of Eastern Nigeria who first moved against Isaac Boro with the assistance of the Ironsi central government. If both Ojukwu and Ironsi fought Isaac Boro for attempting to secede from Eastern Nigeria and Nigeria, why are some of Peter Obi's supporters blaming Gowon and Nigeria for fighting Colonel Ojukwu when he declared Biafra?

Reno Omokri

Gospeller. Deep Thinker. #TableShaker. Ruffler of the Feathers of Obidents. #1 Bestselling author of Facts Versus Fiction: The True Story of the Jonathan Years. Hodophile. Hollywood Magazine Humanitarian of the Year, 2019. Business Insider Influencer of the Year 2022.

Thank you for posting this here.
The Ibos have consistently hid their heads in the sand like an ostrich and cunningly blamed others for the errors,folly and misdeeds of their forebears the erratic Nnamdi Azikiwe and constantly inebriated Aguiyi Ironsi.
These are the people to blame for your failure to attain your delusional Biafra. But we know the Ibos very well,they will direct the blame to the North,Yoruba Muslims,Obafemi Awolowo, Benjamin Adekunle or even Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

These Reno omokri and the 3 major tribes are MUMUs.

Eternal slaves

If Azikiwe called for secession, you would have been attacking him till morrow. If he called for no secession you will attack him . The problem of Nigeria is not Azikiwe. Nigeria is not working

If this report is true, then this go a long way to reemphasize the popular opinion that Nigeria's problem came majorly from a particular region. Power was handed over by that region to the fulanis by forming an alliance to win the majority which led to a ceremonial head of state coming from that region while the fulanis had the prime minister. The same region formed the first ever coup when their plan didn't work out. The same group stole regional powers and resources and took them to the central govt which made sure that a governor doesn't even have constitutional power over a traffic police officer\yellow fever. Now, the revelation is out again that the same region made it impossible for any group to break away from this unholy alliance of strange bed fellows