Lifestone:
Biafra will be landlocked if the Niger Delta does not follow them
They are desperate to have Niger Delta for two main rwasons:
1. Access to sea and international trade.
2.Access to crude oil and hencertificate FX
That's why I believe there won't be Biafra without Niger Delta, and it's obvious why the Ibos are desperate to annex ND.
The other issue my Ibo brothers should know is that the present land area can not take their population, South East is almost fully built up and land locked .

1 All eastern importers must come to clear goods from Apapa port while Port Harcourt port is concessioned to an individual northerner?

2. Nigeria would finance a coastal railway project with common wealth from federation account while Eastern rail route would be financed through a concession and the users of that route pays via tolling after contributing to coastal line financed with common wealth

3. Third mainland bridge and every other major bridges in Nigeria is financed from federation account whereas 2nd Niger bridge is concessioned.?

4. Every 2 kms along the eastern highway is marked with roadblocks by Nigerian forces who impede smooth movement of goods and services vide stop and search in a non war situation while western and other major routes are free from such?

5. No single representative from eastern block in the security council of Nigeria and that sounds right?

Im not a lawyer, but it is still within the rights of an independent Biafran nation to take Nigeria to for 'ownership rights' of its citizens.

As most will recall, Cameroon took Nigeria to court over ownership of the Oil rich Bakassi peninsular and won.

Lets look at a worst case scenario. Lets just assume that Biafra gets independence and Nigeria decided to have no diplomatic relation with Biafra and moves to expel all Biafrans and sieze their assets and properties. The Biafran Government is most likely to take the Nigerian Government to court over illegal aquisition of assets.

1) No international investor will ever step foot in Nigeria ever again because it will be noteworthy international news that the Nigerian Government can sieze the assets of foreigners, without compensation, just for being foreigners

2)The existing international investors are most likely to liquidate their investments and leave. Investors dont like uncertainty. When the current investors realise that they are in a country where their investments can be siezed based on citizenship, none of them will feel safe about their investments

3) The siezing of people assets and their expulsion is most likely to erode the image of Nigeria in the international community while attracting a lot of sympathy for Biafra.

4) It is quite possible that the UN might impose sanctions on Nigeria, especially if the international court rules against Nigeria

kingzizzy:


It is you that is not paying attention. Is what you are saying that when a person is not a citizen of , or renounces their citizenship of Nigeria, they are liable to loose their pproperties in Nigeria for this? If Dangote renounces his Nigeria citizenship and adopts Cameroonian citizenship, the Nigerian Government is entitled to sieze his houses and businesses for this?

salford1:

I dont think any niger delta region can be annexed. They are geared towards staying with Nigeria or forming their own south-south region. If they stick with the former, then any encroachment into their lands would be met with brute force by the Nigerian armed forces.

jpphilips:


Have you heard anywhere in the world where Aliens challenge the citizens right of their host countries?
Which court are they gonna challenge that? Biafra Supreme Court or Nigeria's ? If the later, what are their chances of winning?

I know of the Abandoned property commission reason I asked you what it achieved, was it able to recover those igbo properties in the Niger delta? If your answer is no, then I don't see how it makes any difference.
My history may be rusty at this point, do you know of any commission set up to recover the Biafran money confiscated in 1970?

Agreed, nobody will want to lose his sweat without a fight, the right question is; what are the Biafran plans of getting victory this time around?

Finally, I agree democracy gave rise to secessionist agenda, it doesn't really matter which government is in place except the mandate of the military on the protection of sovereignty changes anytime soon.
Every resistance will be met with force regardless of the type of government in place.

In the UK one of the oldest democracies in the world, the N.ireland separatist groups the IRA met with a brutish force in a democracy, till date, that region including Belfast their capital is still under military occupation, never mind the scores of casualties the IRA took in its nearly 5 decades of insurrection.
Regardless of the government in place, anarchy is met with force world over.

jpphilips:


You don't need anyone to tell you, go to PH, from Lagos Bus stop to Tourist Beach, every landlord there is either Okirika or Kalabari, in 1967, they were all igbos. Who knows, the Yorubas will be the biggest beneficiaries of this current agitation, I envy them really!!
Every 50yrs, the igbo man will commit a political suicide and blame others for his woes!!
Ordinary Nnamdi kanu who is still living in his father's house is now the Trumpet to decide the fate of igbos with properties littered everywhere, Nnamdi kanu whose village does not produce palm oil will decide the fate of Niger delta crude oil, just imagine the insult and disgrace that lvnatic is bringing upon igbos.

bakynes:
This issue is very simple, the new Biafra country needs a good bilateral relationship with Nigeria, if they are to retain their properties or the Naira currency in their hands and bank,if they don't get that bilateral relationship, a single law can make Biafrans lose all the properties and money they have ever made. So that's why they need to stop this Biafra issue and think of restructuring that way it will benefit them, Biafra will level many Igbos to ground zero.

Nnamdi Kanu wasn't thinking about this when he was insulting Nigeria.

pheesayor:
no, except it was posted on nairaland which I didn't see. Who is the person you're talking about? Kindly post link to where it is on nairaland

Dumaknesset:


With due respect you have not been paying attention, even Nigerians do not own lands in Nigeria, every body holds it in trust for the government. Once Biafra pull a skedaddle, the landlord takes over it's properties. No one is seizing ish. It is the law and it upon the basis that all land purchasers in Nigeria purchase land, that is why the deed of assignment always refer to the Land use Act as binding on the transaction. Hope you get it now.

Mujtahida:

You are right to say no one owns land in Nigeria because what Nigerians have is a right to land for 99 years but wrong to say everybody holds land in trust for the government rather it's the government that holds the land in trust for Nigerians. See the preamble of the Land Use Act. And you are a Lawyer right? No fall hand ooo.

Dumaknesset:


So when does preamble become the law. You are correct to the extent that indeed the Government hold lands in trust for Nigerians since there sovereignty is derived from the people, but the law is clear by its letters and spirit that the its is the land purchaser and not the people that hold the land in trust for the government. Hence consent and cofo, from government.There is a difference there.

Mujtahida:

Yes the preamble is Law. It's not there as a fanciful icing on the law. This is too elementary please. Your other posrulations is somewhat garbled.

jpphilips:
author=modik post=57327431]


....Premised on this assertion, why wont the frowning parties to any peaceful bilateral agreement for cessation, as a matter of remedy, frown at injustices and suppression meted out on Igbos in the present Nigeria setting ?


Do you realize that the Portharcourt port is an inland waterway?




PPP is the Nigerian government's self defense strategy since they are unsure where their investments in the south east will end up, it is only wise to leave the SE in the hands of a concessionaire if they go ahead with their plans, so try and get the chronology right, it was demand for Biafra before PPP, you brought it upon yourself, no need to complain.



Same as before, you have yourself to blame, FG did not ask you to threaten the unity of the federation, every action has equal and opposite reaction, you don't tell me you want out and expect me to be investing in your place , that's madness.
If you want out, then you must learn to do things for yourself.





You are grooming a rebel group capable of shutting down 5 South eastern states yet you don't expect some law enforcement presence? wow!! your thought process is unique!





You don't want a mole in your security apparatchik do you? by the way, there is a difference between what you "want" and what you "deserve".
The question i need to ask you at this point is; do you deserve to be at the highest security clearance in Nigeria where your loyalty lies with biafra? Do you deserve to get such juicy positions from a government you oppose? I don't see republicans appointing folks from the Democrats neither do I see the conservatives appointing from the Labour party except in a coalition government which is nt the case here, I really don't understand where this sense of "entitlement" comes from

pazienza:


Go and find out if Southern Sudan are in any bit interested in forming a new Union with the Northern Sudan, no matter how bad their present condition might be, they have a bright future, because they have freedom and so have their destiny in their hands to make or mar!

Freedom is priceless. For a person used to living in a failed British colonial estate, I don't expect you to understand that.

Dumaknesset:
When I say Igbos don't think things through, you would not believe me, so you have not thought about it, yet you want secession.

I am a lawyer and here is a legal dimension.

First note that all lands in Nigeria by virtue of the Land Use Act, 1978 is owned by the state, federal government and local government accordingly. Developed parts are owned by the state through the state governor, the undeveloped parts are owned by the local government, while those areas acquired by federal government are owned by the Federal government.

Individuals and even corporate organizations are mere tenants to the the real owners, the governments! hence, the issuance of cofo, consent, excision, ratifications et al.

Once a property is abandoned as it will be, when the biafrans bolt, the properties will revert to the real owners that is the state government, local government or federal government vide a legal principle called bona vacantia.

Note the legal principle of quic quid plantatur solo solo cedit, he who owes the land owes what is on it, all the developments on the lands become that of the real owner.

All the biafrans properties will become that of Lagos state government, it will be the largest real estate deal in the world since igbos own 90 percent of real estate in Lagos state and Afonjas only own 0.2 percent of real estate in the east.

jpphilips:
author=Mujtahida post=57321172]



I may not understand the so called difference between asking for Biafra and denouncing Nigeria. it is a one way ticket in my opinion.






Are you implying here that kanu is not alone in his quest for secession? of course it is no longer news, the part I find amusing is that all the groups you mentioned have commenced the process on the global stage except kanu who is stuck on the radio. most mind boggling how he enlisted the support of folks who are educated.





You can't ask me to trust you when it you are selling your personal opinion, worse still, you didn't point to any verifiable fact in history that support your presumption.
After the war in 1970, with a stroke of a pen, Nigeria seized all biafran funds in the bank left them with just 20 pounds, do you think there are no courts at the time? or you think the country went stand still because of the so called litigations that ensued? Abandoned property nko?
This is what history taught me, in an event of a break up, Nigeria will get (let me borrow your words) "Punitive and Vindictive" because it is in their interest to do so, perhaps in 1970, it was convenient to take their money, today, it is convenient to take their properties, so yes Nigeria will respond in that manner, I am sure because it has happened before. So you should trust me not the other way round.






I don't reside in Lagos, where I reside, it is not a walk in the park, like you said, experience varies.

With due respect to your point of view, all comments in red color spells each letter of marginalization.

Myriads of reasons can be preferred why a group of people should continue under a well articulated technical subjugation and suppression in all its subtle coloration, that does not make it appetizing to swallow

FGN, for fear of loss of investment is wary to invest in the east (as you opined), how about harvesting resources from the east and redistributing it to other regions? Does that spell equity? "He who goes to equity must go with clean hands"

If the causative factors of Biafra agitation is not addressed, are we to expect calm and tranquility among those ladened with yokes of subtle
denial of equity ?

Think

gohome:


If the so called biafrans go without a proper exist strategy, they will lose in very harsh places. But I bet you they won't lose in Lagos.

The reason is simple. Lagos has grown past gutter reason and ethnic stupidity of most black Africans. Modern Lagos (infrastructure) is being built by a lot of capital inflow from foreign banks. And the owners of this inflow are much wiser and operate at a level higher than your gutter mentality (vindictive my ass) Lagos elites and leaders along side the inflow owners will create a very conducive environment to make money for them self and their kids. Now the issue is, can you differentiate between a Biafran and other foreign investors? Yes maybe, by calling all of them terrorist. How do you prove that? It's likely going to be impossible, because it's a lie.

Again what's specific law will say biafrans lose your properties and Chinese or Indians or Dutch or Americans don't lose.

So my brother don't kid yourself... Lagos will still have modern laws like any other country because money knows no brother and must be made.

first paragraph is vague. Are you asking if aliens can challenge the rights of citizens of a country in that country? If that is your question I'd say very well so. Aliens can sue and be sued in a foreign country. Our case law is replete with such cases.

I get your position and I have made mine known too. No need for us going in circles. For what it's worth Biafra might or might not be.
Cheers.

jpphilips:



I am not sure you quoted my post to make sense, if you think Nigeria can not differentiate a Chinese from an Igbo man, then you dont deserve a response.

gohome:



You have no answer to the question? I will ask again? In the eyes of the law, How will foreigners be differentiated?

jpphilips:
author=Mujtahida post=57356835]


You may go back and read that paragraph again, you can't conclude it is vague simply because you don't know the answers.




Biafra is a reality only in the minds of poor students of history. The fact available to me says without fear of contradiction that Nigeria has not lost a conventional warfare since 1914.
That goes to prove that the current Biafra noise will end in gnashing of teeth and victory for common sense.

jpphilips:



Let me advise you for free, when you are on the Internet, do not assume you are relating with your peers in an unenlightened microcosm.
I am not sure you have owned a property in Nigeria, if you have, you will know the process hence understand better how dvmb your question is.

Mujtahida:

There's nothing in the vague first paragraph of your penultimate post for me to answer because I could not discern if you were talking about the right of citizens or citizenship right.

I am not for or against biafra so my arguments are not tinged with sentiments. If Biafra becomes a reality, fine. If it does not, fine. I just want to put down certain viewpoints. Shikena.

The arguments from your side as I understand it is that once Biafra is declared, war will ensue and Biafrans will lose their status as citizens and as a consequence lose their property. And I opined and still opine that nothing is fixed. It's not black and white.

RE : DOES SECESSION OF A COUNTRY MAKE AN INDIVIDUAL LOSE HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY? That's the topic once again. For you secession equals war. But I have a different opinion: secession does not necessarily mean war. Your opinions are ruled by just one thought: war, war, war. But I look at it broadly to say there might or might be no war. South Sudan was had without a war, was it? What of Czechslovakia, montenegro and Serbia, India/Pakistan? is it only through wars that nations secede? Though I readily concede that most secessions have been trailed by war but history proves that other nations have parted ways peacefully and at this point whatever is said now are just postulations. There might or might be no war in the event of the secession of Biafra. And whether war ensues or not there will be litigation in our courts up to the supreme Court on the status of citizens and their property rights. (I have cited Ojukwu case as a precedent and buttressed the fact that we are in a democratic setting not the military that ruled after the war) The fact that Nigeria has never lost a war is besides the point. I know Nigerian military history.

jpphilips:
author=modik post=57362475]




Do you understand the meaning of chronological order?
First, you guys spoke with your votes, once defeated, you asked for Biafra, the feds responded with PPP that's self defense not marginalization. Were you thinking asking for Biafra in a united Nigeria is without consequence?
Did you hear Arewa's response to your sit at home order? Won't be long before your brothers in the north will become bullseye for radical northerners.
In the end, both you and Nigeria will sit down and count the cost, just like in 1970, you will lose.
[/color]


Like I said in the previous post, you have the right to ask for anything, you will only get what you deserve, like it or not, thats the real world for you. [/color]




The investments were made before you asked for Biafra, without spelling out what becomes of those investments in a Biafran future, that alone will deter Nigeria from making future investments, what is wrong with that?
Our oil investments in the east are all Jvs a type of PPP so I dont understand the whole pseudo sense of entitlement you are brandishing.[/color]





[cor=#000099]Biafra is not a solution to any of Nigeria's myriads of problems, rather it is a means to anarchy and death.
I really dont need to explain the end of that road to you, the consequences of this agitation will send the right message dont say I didn't warn you.[/color]




[cor=#000099]Sorry I can't think like you, im a realist while you are a "fantasist"
[/color]

gohome:


Oga, as it stands Igbos aren't going no where. The dynamics at play as at today is different. If Igbos go, not only will Nigeria seize to exist, it will go up in flames. My reasons are simple

1. Ijaw will have a nation. They won't share with nobody. Where will the the rest of the Niger Deltans go? Apart from say cross river and Akwa Ibom, anioma and ik we're that may join their cousins the rest will be stranded. 2 or more factions will fight for them.. WAR

2. Boko haram will overrun the NE and northern Cameroon is less than 6 months. You don't want to know what will happen to the shites. It will be Iran and Saudi play ground.

3. A plateau man and never be in the same country with the Hausa Fulani. As we speak, they don't co exist. (In other words, they can not stay in the same street)

4. Point 3 above can be said of all other sub groups in the middle belt.

5. It will very difficult for a country with this kind of structure to separate. And the world won't allow 180M black salvages ravage by crises to disturb their peace. They haven't recovered with Syria yet. They may not be able to use force to stop Nigerian was flaming up like they did in the 60s but they are other means.

6. One of such means is to have a political solution. They did it in 97/98, and if they play that card well, Nigeria can manage another 30 years

7. Another card that can be played will be restructuring. Nigeria can be restructured and grouped into more like minds. In my opinion, restructuring can prolong disintegration by another 50 years and maybe by then we hope that one world order would have washed away our stupid cave like ethnic stupidity as I would like to call it

8. So my brother, you are pawns. Pawns being used to fight extreamly hard for disintegration while the strategist and owners of the world manage it.

Mujtahida:

There's nothing in the vague first paragraph of your penultimate post for me to answer because I could not discern if you were talking about the right of citizens or citizenship right.

I am not for or against biafra so my arguments are not tinged with sentiments. If Biafra becomes a reality, fine. If it does not, fine. I just want to put down certain viewpoints. Shikena.

The arguments from your side as I understand it is that once Biafra is declared, war will ensue and Biafrans will lose their status as citizens and as a consequence lose their property. And I opined and still opine that nothing is fixed. It's not black and white.

RE : DOES SECESSION OF A COUNTRY MAKE AN INDIVIDUAL LOSE HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY? That's the topic once again. For you secession equals war. But I have a different opinion: secession does not necessarily mean war. Your opinions are ruled by just one thought: war, war, war. But I look at it broadly to say there might or might be no war. South Sudan was had without a war, was it? What of Czechslovakia, montenegro and Serbia, India/Pakistan? is it only through wars that nations secede? Though I readily concede that most secessions have been trailed by war but history proves that other nations have parted ways peacefully and at this point whatever is said now are just postulations. There might or might be no war in the event of the secession of Biafra. And whether war ensues or not there will be litigation in our courts up to the supreme Court on the status of citizens and their property rights. (I have cited Ojukwu case as a precedent and buttressed the fact that we are in a democratic setting not the military that ruled after the war) The fact that Nigeria has never lost a war is besides the point. I know Nigerian military history.

Mujtahida:

Interesting points you have raised here. Let's discuss. And my viewpoint might differ from yours but as matured people let's keep it civil and polite.
On your eight points I have always believed that it's virtually impossible for Nigeria to split into two and I regard those who take such a view as being too simplistic and naive in their thinking. In a different thread on this Biafran issue I did posit that Nigeria as a geographical space is what is holding this country together. Once that band snaps all the inherent ethnic fissures and fault lines would give way and the whole nation will go to pieces.

But I discern that despite your calls for restructuring, despite that you seem to believe that Nigeria will split into more than one piece you still believe that it is inevitable that Nigeria splits. Why do you think so?

Nigeria is a key geopolitical player as far as Africa is concerned. She shoulders lots of responsibility and I do not think that the world powers will countenance her going to pieces. It is in their interest that Nigeria remains as a piece. Think of the possible monumental humanitarian crisis with spill over effects. Sierra Leone is still healing, Liberia, Cote D'ivoire too, Ghana, Togo, Benin are very small. So who'd absorb the spill over?

Psychologically Igbos have become schizorphrenics and it's bad for them as far as national perception and the space available for them politically is concerned. The civil war caused a rupture in the consciousness of the nation that has not yet healed. In fact the wounds have fostered and has become a suppurating sore. They simply cannot be trusted (I am referencing national perception here). Nigeria feels that Igbos still carry that threatening and divisive vision in their heart and yes Biafra has become the refuge, the comfort, the hope of the Igbos in a nation where we all suffer just like the slaves during the slave era projected their visions of freedom to the heavenly Jerusalem. Biafra is the alternate dream for Igbos in the absence of a Nigerian dream. So I'd like to ask don't you think that the time has come or should come for the Igbos to exorcise this vision from their collective unconscious?