To: umu...@yahoogroups.com, ndiigb...@yahoogroups.com, "Igbo forum Igbo forum" <igbowor...@yahoogroups.com>, brainsofnig...@yahoogroups.com, alaigbow...@yahoogroups.com, nigerianw...@yahoogroups.com, wi...@googlegroups.com
Cc: "Okechukwu Okonjo" <o_ok...@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: Tuesday, 27 April, 2010, 18:02
From: onu...@hotmail.com
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:41:26 +0000
Subject: RE: IGBO PROVERBS - Eziokwu bu Ndu (1)
(1)
“Writers are condemned and attacked because they posted views which are historically true, or are logical but did not favour our tribe. Take for instance, the history of the Biafran war. Most of our people cannot pardon you if you say or write that late Major Nzeogwu and his co-coupists made a grievous mistake in killing other regional premiers but sparring late Dr. M I Okpara and Chief D. Osadebe. Sparring the two Igbo premiers gave the coup a strong tribal undertone which angered the northerners grievously and was exploited and fanned by foreign trouble seekers, and led to the massacre of our people in the
North (= the pogrom)..We always wanted to show that pogrom was unprovoked. Moreover with the exception of the recent history of eastern Region titled “The land of the risen sun“, hardly any Igbo writer or opinion leader had admitted that late Dr. M I Okpara, premier of the defunct Eastern Region, was unusually high handed in his punishment of towns which did not vote for the NCNC in an election in early 1960s, particularly the non- Igbo speaking minorities of the South South zone of today. Also until that recent book was published, the vast majority of our people could not accept the historical fact that we did not ”suspend” the civil war, but were rather totally defeated, and obliged to “surrender unconditionally”. They invariably raised objection to any
mention of that fact. It is unfortunate that “naturally” we like to defend our “own”, no matter the truth or the facts. We appear to mean, “we could not be wrong” Or “even if we are wrong, never admit it. If you admit our fault. or defeat, you become an enemy or a saboteur” .That posture is a clear demonstration of the above Igbo proverb .on “Ofe nne mmadu telu”
Umu Igbo,
I opened this e-mail to come face to face with the above falsehood and abomination that continue to be propagated by Igbo apologists and the apostles of the debunked POLITICS OF APPEASEMENT. These are spineless brethren who lacking the fortitude to address the Genocaust (Igbo genocide and holocaust) have connived with those who committed these abominable crimes against humanity and war crimes and continue to try to rewrite
history; they would rather blame the victims than acknowledge their copout, for a better word! Let’s have this conversation without trying to sneak it in.
Writing in:
INVESTIGATOR’S REPORT ON COMPLAINT
LAID BEFORE THE DIRECTORATE OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY
OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BIAFRA
NIGERIA/BIAFRA CONFLICT
AN INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURIST FIND PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE
The Genocide Document
Dr. Mensah summed up the Genocaust (Igbo Genocide and Holocaust) below:
“The Report suggests that this frustration resulted in the committing, with unbelievable impunity, of the most heinous crimes in human history.
The crimes are described in the Complaint all along, as genocide, but, from my investigations, it appears that there is more to it than genocide in the conventional sense. THE ALLEGED GENOCIDE COMMITTED IN BIAFRA AND, UNFORTUNATELY, CITED WITH LESS CLARITY IN THE COMPLAINT, MAY NEED A DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.”
Dr. Mensah in the above report continued:
“Factual Evidence of Genocide
As has been described in page five of the Complaint, in Kano, the capital of Northern region, there occurred in 1953 an uprising of the indigenous citizens of
the area, directed against the citizens of the Eastern Region, as it then was. This uprising resulted in the extermination of a great number of persons of Biafran origin. It is relevant to note that this was the time when Nigeria was under colonial rule and the records of the barbarity of this extermination are available. Among the methods used were the shooting by means of bows and arrows, clubbing to death of old men, women and children, and the pounding to death of the wounded.
It is significant to note that, during the course of my investigations, I did not come across any individual in the public service, either in the Federation of Nigeria or in Biafra, nor any foreign nationals, resident at the time of this uprising who denied that great
numbers of peoples of what is now known as the Republic of Biafra lost their lives at this time.
Again, in 1966 there was another episode of this similar incident directed against the citizens of the Eastern Region, resident in the Northern Region of the Federation of Nigeria . In that case extermination was not confined to residents in a single town in Northern Nigeria , but had more or less the character of a national tragedy and, what is more, the number of victims reached enormous proportions. At this time, the Federation of Nigeria was independent and members of the Armed Forces of Nigeria took part, and there appeared to be no restraint to the venom that the Northern element bore against the peoples of the Eastern Region.
I had the opportunity to investigate the veracity of the information regarding this holocaust and, here again, I found no one denying that this extermination took place. The extermination took place. The
explanations that I had from officials of the Federation of Nigeria is that these incidents were excusable excesses of a people enraged by criminal tendencies within the Biafran residents of the North. Others think that it was unfortunate but they refused to think that this could be described as “genocide”.
The number of peoples killed in this massacre is variously described as between 36,000 and 42,000, but some of the witnesses in my investigations tend to think that this number is grossly exaggerated. I had no means for checking on the numbers, but, from the results of my investigations, and also from the reaction of peoples who gave evidence to me, I cannot help thinking that the number of people killed must be considerable.
In an endeavour to unravel the causes of these unfortunate lapses in civilized behaviour, resulting in this tragedy, a commission of enquiry was appointed out of a number of distinguished Biafran jurists,
and the evidence produced before this Enquiry I find to be gruesome.
From witnesses, I was able to gather that there was a breakdown in law and order in the Federation of Nigeria during the time of the 1966 massacres, resulting in the mass exodus of peoples of Biafran origin from the Northern Region and the Western region into the Eastern region.
Hostilities between the Federation of Nigeria and Republic of Biafra commenced on 6th July, 1967, and some witnesses maintain that these hostilities served as a continuation of an intention to exterminate the Biafran people; the view being that the war served as the Nigerian variant of what the Nazis called “the final solution” of the Jewish problem which involved a methodical extermination of the Jews in Europe.
Witnesses were able to testify that, in the Mid-West region, where there was a big concentration of Biafrans residing, mass exterminations took place in the towns of Benin and Asaba. In Asaba I was informed that all the males of Biafran origin were told to gather in the market-place to welcome the advancing Federal troops. What resulted was that all these people were razed to the ground by machine-gun fire. The witness who gave this statement was in the Mid-West region at the time of the incident, and he states that about 700 people were killed on this day of ceremonial welcome. The witness referred me to the Observer newspaper of
the 21st January, 1968, where this incident was reported.
In Benin, the Federal capital of the Mid-West, evidence was given that all Biafran residents in this town were called out into the open where they were also exterminated. Articles from newspapers reporting this incident were shown to me and I found particularly relevant an article written by Connor Cruise O’Brien, in which the barbarity of this incident is described.
From the Mid-West region, where it appears the “final solution” type of mass extermination of Biafrans started, the process became widespread in the order regions. This is what many
maintained.
At Sapele all Biafran residents in this town were assembled in a Trade Centre three miles from the town, where they were razed to the ground by machine-gun fire from Federal soldiers. Witnesses gave 2,000 as the number of Biafrans exterminated in this incident.
Witnesses gave statements to the effect that the methods used in Sapele were repeated in the following towns – Warri, and
Koko, involving the extermination of well over 2,500 Biafrans.
It was alleged that in Oguashi-Uku about 200 Biafrans mostly teachers and Civil Servants, were shot. I am informed that this happened in the month of May, 1968 and that the explanation that the Federal Military Authority gave was that the victims were guilty of having consorted with the enemy.
Ishagu
– a small town with a population of 500, mostly Biafrans, was shelled, killing all inhabitants except 12 children, aged between 5 and 12 years. This allegation, I am informed, was confirmed by the Head of the Federal military Authority.
In other towns such as Ogoja, eleven Biafran dependents of government officials who had fled from the town were shot. This testimony was obtained from an eyewitness.
Enugu Ezike – Here testimony was that a Biafran Christian congregation
was dragged out of the church in which they were praying and then shot.
Nsukka – Witness testified to me, mentioned that the moment this town was occupied by troops of the Federal Military Authority, all the male population in this town were called out and razed by machine-gun fire.
Onitsha – Witness testified to the fact that a number of people estimated to be about 200,
who had collected in a church known as the “Church of Cherubim”, and who were praying, were dragged out of this church by troops of the Federal Army and also razed by machine-gun fire. I find it important to mention that this witness was in the vicinity of the area where this holocaust took place, and he added that in the pandemonium which occurred at the time of the shooting, the people around panicked and started running helter-skelter, and this attracted the attention of the Federal troops who, as a result turned their guns and started shooting into the crowd. He was wounded in the leg by the gunshot, and had his right leg amputated. He showed the stub of his leg to me, with tears streaming down his cheeks.
It was possible for me to interview a British doctor who had worked in the Federation of Nigeria for 11 years. He mentioned that at the time when hostilities between Nigeria and Biafra started, he was working in a hospital situated in a
town called Itu. This town he mentioned as being an Ibibio area. In my interview with this Medical Officer, who has since returned from Nigeria, and is now resident in a Scottish town, he mentioned cases where, during the 1966 massacres, a great number of Biafrans brought out to his hospital were in such a ghastly state, and the number of those brought in was of such enormity, that it took him, and his team of medical officers, four days and four nights to be able to attend to the wounds of all those brought in. He recalled how sad he and his colleagues were about their inability to cope with the numbers in good time as required by medical practice. This he said resulted in many sick and wounded dying before they could receive medical aid.
Methods of Genocide
In my investigation into the methods used in committing the atrocities against the peoples of the Biafran origin, my witnesses described scenes which also appear to have followed the Nazi pattern of the final solution” which followed the Wannsee Conference.
a) Evacuation:
I had witnesses who testified to the fact that in most areas where troops of the Federal Authority entered, peoples of Biafran origin were loaded on to trucks and taken out of towns. It was explained that these people were sent into the jungles where the older ones were assembled and shot, and their bodies were left to be disposed of by wild beasts that roam the jungles. The younger men were sorted out, and posted to the units of the Federal Army where they were used as cannon-fodder in attacks on Biafran positions. It was testified to me that the children were sent to the Northern region to be sold into slavery, and the women were made to serve in the camps of the Federal troops, where they were ravished.
The area of Biafra where this method was first used, it was testified to me, was Nsukka. A number of other witnesses mentioned that other
places, such as Asaba, Onitsha , Owerri were similarly evacuated.
I found it difficult to think that, particularly in Asaba, evacuation ever took place, because witnesses had mentioned that all the Biafrans residents were exterminated. However, I have reason to believe that further investigations might reveal the use of this method in places other than Nsukka.
b) Burial:
It was testified to me that the disposal of the bodies of the Biafrans exterminated also followed the pattern of the Nazi “Final Solution” – it was mentioned to me that in Asaba, and other Mid-West villages, big trenches were dug where all the bodies of the
exterminated were dumped. I had evidence to the effect that such mass graves could be found in other occupied territories.
I had evidence from eighteen witnesses to these mass burials. From two out of this number, I obtained the testimony that especially in the mass graves at Asaba, the wounded and the sick Biafrans, and a few sucklings, were dumped together with the dead, and that during the sealing of these trenches with their loads of the dead, the cries and the wailing of the sick, the wounded and the babies, could be heard from a long distance away. In this testimony it was also mentioned that, when these mass graves had been covered, the Federal soldiers danced native war dances over them.
c) Utter Destruction of Civilian Centres:
A number of Witnesses testified to the fact that especially in the villages, predominately populated by the Biafran citizens, there was utter destruction of all structures for human habitation, livestock and farms. Witnesses mentioned villages around Onitsha , Owerri and Nsukka as places where this method of extermination was extensively used.
Witnesses were unanimous in their belief that this method followed the wake of the troops of the Federal Authority, and that into whichever area of Biafra they advanced, there was utter devastation of all houses, farms and livestock.
d) Food Poisoning:
In the Complaint as submitted, there is a mention of food poisoning as another method which has been used by the Federal authority for the purposes of exterminating the people of Biafra . My investigations into this Complaint were carried out amongst Health Workers and Scientists resident in the Biafran Republic . I took the opportunity to question officials of the Federation of Nigeria ; the evidence I obtained in this manner of investigation is rather conflicting. The Health Workers and Scientists of Biafra were positive in their testimonies before me that the food poisoning actually took place in the early part of the War, and that what was discovered to have constituted the poisoning of the food was a lethal chemical substance, known as arsenic, which was found to have been mixed with salt, sugar, milk and tomatoes. The testimony attempted to prove that this poisoning was carried
out by the Federal Authority of Nigeria . Witnesses in the Federation of Nigeria , who were mainly officials, emphatically denied ever poisoning any foodstuff. They, in fact, described this allegation as being “ridiculous”. Except from witnesses in the Republic of Biafra , who were citizens of Biafra , I found no other witnesses who could positively endorse this charge. However, a British doctor, who worked at this time in Biafra, testified to the fact that there could be some truth in this allegation, since, from the number of cases of serious illnesses he had examined, especially in the refugee camps, and in the camps of thousands of orphaned children, he discovered some form of poisoning, but he thought that, at this stage, he could not emphatically state that this was through arsenic poisoning of the food from the Federal side of Nigeria. He said that during this time there was wide spread famine in the whole of the Republic of Biafra , and the
possibilities could be that people could have eaten poisonous shrubs, or anything.
e) Starvation:
This, as a method of extermination of the Biafrans, has also been mentioned in page 36 of the Complaint. All witnesses testified that widespread starvation in Biafra, as a result of Federal blockade of the Republic of Biafra , is causing deaths, the numbers of which has been estimated in thousands daily. Witnesses from the Federal side of Nigeria explain starvation as a legitimate weapon of warfare but, from the magnitude of the destruction that this so-called weapon has inflicted upon the peoples of Biafra , especially children, I am averse to
accepting the legal validity of this weapon.
f) Bombing:
Indiscriminate bombing of civilian population in towns and villages in Biafra has been widely witnessed by foreign nationals visiting Biafra , and publication of these acts in the world papers has served to inform world opinion sufficiently as to the barbarity of this. In the course of my investigations in the Republic of Biafra , carried out in the month of December 1968, I was myself a witness to the most barbaric bombing of a populous market place in the capital of Biafra Umuahia. This form of bombing, which I witnessed, was carried out for two days and I found it gruesome to
witness the dismembered bodies of men, women and children.
Witnesses who appeared before me, during my investigation in Biafra, went to great pains to explain that this form of bombing is a facet of the Federal Nigerian variant of the “final solution”, the purpose of which, as explained above, is to exterminate the entire population of Biafra.
Witnesses from the Federal side of Nigeria , who testified before me, denied that there is any element of truth in the allegation that the bombing is intended to exterminate the Biafrans. They have, however, accepted that the bombing of civilian centers was not proper and the Federal authorities have not sanctioned this mode of warfare. I find it pertinent to note here that the Senior Official of the Federal Authority, who I interviewed, mentioned that, due to the hue and cry that has been raised against this type of bombing from the peoples of the Western Europe, the Federal Military authorities
were seriously considering grounding all the bomber planes, and eliminating bombing from the whole Conflict.
I discussed the question of bombing with a member of the International Observer Team, and I found it surprising that this member thought that the bombing did not constitute anything that could be considered illegitimate in any form of warfare. Whether or not this indiscriminate bombing of civilian population centers is legitimate in any warfare, I think a further study of this aspect of the law could help in establishing what the accepted limit is. My own view is that the type of bombing that is being carried out by the Federal Authorities in the Republic of Biafra is
in breach of the Law of Warfare.
Article 22 of The Hague Regulation of 1907, relating to warfare, states that “the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited”, but in the same regulation a distinction is made between combatants and non-combatants, and there are restrictions on the bombing of non-combatants. Bombing defenceless civilians in non-operational zones, or non-strategic points in belligerent states, cannot find support for legitimacy under the Laws of Warfare.
Perhaps it might be found pertinent to quote the summary in the Kelly Claim in 1930, between Mexico and the U.S.A. , in which it is stated:
“During the last century there has been a world-wide effort to mitigate the horrors of
war. The principle has been acknowledged more and more that the unarmed citizen shall be spared in person, property and honour, as much as the exigencies of war will permit”.
g) Other Gruesome and Barbarous Methods:
In the course of my investigations I came across witnesses who testified to methods of extermination which I find so gruesome and barbarous that it is difficult to describe in any detail. These are:
i. Execution in the Market Places:
This involved the slitting of throats and the chopping of heads in the market place.
ii. The Killing of Unborn Babies:
In this the stomachs of pregnant women were slit open, and the tiny unborn babies slashed with matchets.
iii. The Plucking of Eyes out of their Sockets:
One of the witnesses who testified to me had his left eye plucked out and he mentioned that he was the last of a queue of Biafran Prisoner-of-War who were having their eyes plucked out, and he was able to run away with one eye because when it came to his turn, an alarm was given of a Biafran advance, and the plucker had to run for his gun, thus making it possible for him to escape with one eye.
Other barbarous methods, too indecent to discuss in detail, were also mentioned by eyewitnesses. These included chopping off of the male genital organ and plugging it into the mouths of the victims.
There was also testimony regarding the ravishing of virgins, which consisted of slitting open the female genital organ by means of broken bottles and bayonets. Eight witnesses who testified to me of this had survived this barbarity, but they mentioned a great many other women who died as a result of it.
iv. The Skinning of Live Biafrans:
Witnesses who testified to this method of extermination, mentioned that they were eyewitnesses, and that invariably all the victims of this died as a result of the skinning. The method of “skinning alive”, as was testified to me, was by means of broken bottles. This incident occurred in Ishagu. Twenty-two males were “skinned” in this manner, as per the testimony of one witness who mentioned witnessing this process.”
Dr. Mensah continued:
“Evidence in Substantiation of Motive:
In 1953 uprising resulting in the massacre of citizens of the Eastern region resident in the North, I find it difficult to establish any motive, and it may be that this was simply what I might call a “lapse” in civilized human behaviour.
From the 1966 uprising up to the
beginning of the present hostilities, it appears that there is some systematization or planning of atrocities committed against the citizens of the former Eastern Region.
In consideration of this systematisation of the methods of extermination I find it relevant to mention the formation of an assault group which has been described in the Complaint as the “Sardauna Brigade”.
i. Incitement to Commit Crime and Comment Thereon:
Speeches made by Northern political leaders at the time of the formation of the militant group make it appear that the resultant acts of mass killing cannot be said to be spontaneous and undirected.
In the Complaint can be found inflammatory speeches such as “I am appealing to the Minister to make life more difficult for them (Biafrans)”. This is on page 10 of the Complaint. This was made in the Northern Regional Legislature.
Again we find such speeches as “I cannot see why they (Biafrans) should be in our region” (page 11).
“Had it not been for Colonial rule there would hardly have been any Ibos (Biafrans) in this (Northern) region”.
“I think that these (two things) are the major things I have to answer now. One is Scholarship and other one is on how to do away with the Ibos”
“My Ministry will do all it can to see that the demands of members are met. How to do this, when to do it, all this should not be disclosed. In due course you will all see what will happen”. This was in reference with doing away with the Ibos, the larger part of the Biafran nation.
These inflammatory speeches were made by responsible ministers and politicians in the Regional legislature of the North, and they were all made at a time preceding the massacre of 1966.
From consideration of these speeches, which are all recorded in the Parliamentary pamphlets of the Northern Government, and also the formation of the
Sardauna Brigade in the region of incitement, that is the Northern part of the Federation, I find it difficult to believe that the acts of atrocities directed against peoples of Biafran origin were not premeditated, centrally directed, and did not contain motives such as the extermination of those people, or the denial of their right of existence, or the intention to physically destroy them.
ii. Refutations of Genocide, based on the Code of Conduct and Comment Thereon:
In most documents of an official nature issued by Governments, especially the United Kingdom Government and also the International Observer Team, there appear denials of there having been genocide, or the intention to commit genocide, on the part of the Federal Government. Justification for these denials is now based on a restricted document, issued by the Federal Military Authorities, and entitled “Operational Code of Conduct for the Nigerian Armed Forces”. A copy of this is appended in this report; since this document has assumed a role of such importance in the thinking of nations, I find it pertinent to make some comments on it.
The bulk of the activities complained as being “genocide” appears to have started in January, 1966. The hostilities between the Federal Military Government and the Government of Biafra, which are being complained of as being a continuation of a policy of genocide, broke out in May 1967 and this document, I learnt in the course of my investigation, was issued in September 1968. The document itself is not dated.
From my interview with officials of the International Red Cross it was pointed out to me that prior to the issue of this document the headquarters of the International Red Cross in Geneva had lodged protests with the Federal Military Authority, in January 1968 and March 1968. These protests, I was
informed, were in regard to some inhuman excesses of the army of the Federal Military Government. I learnt that these inhuman excesses of the soldiers mostly concerned the treatment of Biafran prisoners of war and Biafran civilian populations in areas occupied by forces of the Federal Military Government.
iii. Provision of the Code of Conduct in Relation to Complaint:
This Code of Conduct gives a catalogue of instructions that the combatant Federal Forces are expected to observe.
Firstly, it states that “under no circumstances should pregnant women be ill-treated or killed”.
In the Complaint are contained allegations of the splitting of the stomachs of pregnant women and the killing of the unborn
babies.
Secondly, it states “children must not be molested or killed. They will be protected and cared for”.
In the Complaint is mentioned the ill-treatment of children and also incidents in which children have been buried alive with their dead or wounded parents in mass graves.
Thirdly, it states that “youths and school children must not be attacked unless they are engaged in open hostility against Federal Government Forces. They should be given all protection and care”.
In the Complaint is a mention of the indiscriminate bombing of schools which, in essence, constitutes an attack.
Fourthly, it stipulates “hospitals, hospital staff and patients should not be tempered with or molested”.
In the Complaint there is a mention of the bombing of hospitals, the killing of patients on their sick beds and also the killing of nurses.
A British medical Officer whose testimony has been mentioned earlier, recalled how in a hospital where there were many wounded and sick Biafran citizens the advancing forces of the Federal Government demanded the surrender of such
patients. The matron of the hospital had to hide all the Biafran patients in cupboards in the hospital, thereby saving their lives.
Fifthly, there is a prohibition of the malicious destruction of property and buildings.
In the Complaint it is maintained that there has been, and there continues to be, wanton destruction of property, including buildings, farms, foodstuff and livestock.
Sixthly, there is a prohibition of the desecration of Churches and Mosques.
In the Complaint can be found allegations of the breaking into churches by the Federal Troops and the killing of worshipping Christians. There is also testimony of desecration consisting of the using of a chalice in the church for “Rabelaisian” buffoonery, and also the donning of the priests’ robes by soldiers for the purpose of dancing to fetish music.
And, finally, it goes on to disallow looting and many other acts against wounded soldiers and foreign Nationals (but specifically excludes mercenaries who are described as being “the worst of enemies” and declares they should not be spared).
Cases of all these prohibited acts have been confirmed to me by eyewitnesses whom I regard as reliable.
iv. Comment on Provisions of the Code of Conduct:
This Code of Conduct is obviously intended to set a higher moral standard amongst the troops of the Federal Military Authority and to minimize breaches of the laws, regulations and conventions regarding the conduct of warfare. However, I cannot help thinking that it would never have been issued had it not been for the manifestation of international public opinion. It therefore raises the question of how far the Federal Government was aware of the prohibited actions having taken place before the issue of the Code and, if it was so aware, why disciplinary action was not taken and the issue of the Code not made earlier. One is left with the impression that if these acts did not have the connivance of the Federal Government, there must have been a shocking lake of discipline in the Federal
military Forces. The fact that it was found necessary to issue the Code is, to my mind, implicit evidence that such acts had taken place. To elaborate:
Firstly, the troops of the Federal Government are commanded by officers trained in Western countries where the rules concerning the conduct of troops in any warfare formed a very important part of their training. Since this is the case it becomes apparent that if these officers had been putting their training into practice and the troops had obeyed their orders, there should not have been any necessity for the issue of the Code of Conduct.
Secondly, as I have pointed out above, various international organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross have made claims that excesses on the part of the troops had taken place and it was considered that these excesses were in breach of the laws and rules of warfare, thus confirming some of the allegations contained in the Complaint.
Lastly, I find it difficult to accept that a Code of Conduct such as this would in any way affect or change any genocidal intentions that individual combatants might have. The mere publication of a Code of
this nature would not necessarily mean that the authors were sincere about its stipulations.
In the report of the International Observer Team can be found allegations of:
a) The shooting of members or field officers of the International Red Cross, which incidents are alleged to have occurred after the issue of the Code of Conduct.
b) The treatment of Biafran prisoners of war in a manner inconsistent with the Geneva Convention on the treatment of Prisoners of war. The report
contains some evidence of the non-observation of this Convention, and here again it is alleged that this has occurred after the issue of the Code of Conduct.
c) Intensification of the bombing of centers of civilian population, resulting in the killing of masses of Biafrans has occurred from around December 1968, as far as I am aware, it is still continuing.
v. Comment on Purport of Code of Conduct:
The ideals that the Code of Conduct puts forth might be impressive to Governments and members of the international community, but, on full consideration of events in the course of the war, I am not convinced that, if there has ever been any motive to destroy the peoples of Biafran origin, the Code of Conduct has done anything, or very much, to remove that intention. By and large I consider the Code useful only as an instrument meant to exonerate the authorities of the Federal Military Government from the charge of having encouraged the extermination of the citizens of Biafra , or from being accomplices to acts of genocide against the Biafrans.
Further, in the International Observer Team’s report it is stated that Observers have encountered difficulties in obtaining access to certain parts of the Port Harcourt Region in Occupied Biafra . The Team wished to go to Elele and another village near Port Harcourt to investigate a report of mass extermination.
They were refused access by the Military Commander on the grounds that he had no instructions to allow them to enter the area and they had to return to Lagos where they took the matter up with the
Federal Government. This resulted in their obtaining permission to enter the area two weeks later, and not immediately. This could indicate a deliberate attempt by the Federal Government to cover up incriminating evidence.
During my visit, I must say, I did not encounter any such obstruction, but it is obviously in the interest of the Federal Government, subject to genuine requirements of military security, to allow independent observers free access to the occupied areas.
Finally, I am of the opinion that in many of the cases cited to me hatred of the Biafrans and a wish to exterminate them was a foremost motivational
factor.”
NIGERIA/BIAFRA CONFLICT
AN INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURIST FIND PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE
When grown men or women are unable to explain their refusal to address a crime of the magnitude as the planned Genocaust in which their Igbo nation was nearly wiped off the face of the earth by those whom they consider their brethren, it boggles the mind that instead of hiding under the bed or in some bottomless pit they should try to explain away their inaction – TUFIAKWA! Is it not interesting that in the guise of
promoting Igbo culture they would try to sneak in a view that they themselves confessed was extremely offensive and controversial? Why detract from the subject matter, why not present a view that is less distasteful? Simple, they have an agenda and instead of presenting their point of view on its strength, have tried to muddy the waters. There is nothing wrong with having a different point of view, there are both committed Igbo Nigerians and Igbo Biafrans who are unapologetically Igbo and are committed to equal treatment for Ndi Igbo whether they are Nigerians or decide to follow their dream nation – Biafra:
“he Igbo mind dreams of a humane and pure society like ancient Biafra - A return to an ancestral dream society. The reason for such a dream is that the Igbo still live with the worldview and philosophical foundation of such a
society.”
Maazi Osuagwu
2
In (1) we laid the groundwork with the introduction of the most important document to date on the Genocaust,
NIGERIA/BIAFRA CONFLICT
AN INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURIST FIND PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE
which conclusively proved that Nigeria committed Genocaust (Igbo genocide and holocaust). For those interested, there is another document produced by the Government of Eastern Nigeria that is even more detailed since it includes the names and serial numbers where possible of the air force, navy and army officers and also civilians and the part they played in the planned Genocaust (NORTHERN ARMY OFFICERS AND MEN AND OTHERS INVOLVED IN THE BLOODY MASSACRE OF 29TH JULY – SEPTEMBER, 1966 [page
74] The document,
NIGERIAN POGROM
&
JANUARY 15: BEFORE and AFTER
is part of an even larger volume called Atrocities Tribunal, put together by a Committee was chairmanned by Mr. G. C. N. Onyiuke.
The question might arise, why use a new term Genocaust to describe the planned genocide and holocaust against Ndi Igbo/Biafrans since other terms, pogrom, genocide or holocaust already exists?
Dr. Mensah, a Ghanaian in the,
INVESTIGATOR’S REPORT
NIGERIA/BIAFRA
CONFLICT
AN INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURIST FIND
PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF GENOCIDE
answers the question:
“The crimes are described in the Complaint all along, as genocide, but, from my investigations, it appears that there is more to it than genocide in the conventional sense. THE ALLEGED GENOCIDE COMMITTED IN BIAFRA AND, UNFORTUNATELY, CITED WITH LESS CLARITY IN THE COMPLAINT, MAY NEED A DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW."
Below are pertinent parts from the document. This concludes the introductory work to finally put to rest
at least among Ndi Igbo (a work that had already been completed by the Oputa Panel) the notion that Igbo is to be blamed for the unexplainable behaviour of Nigeria in the planning and carrying out of the GENOCAUST.
“THE FULL STORY of the attempt by Northern Nigerians to exterminate Easterners in the North and other parts of Nigeria can only be told at a future date when all the facts in all their stark horror are known. Today, it is impossible merely to lift a corner of this darkest page in the annals of the country and to give the world a glimpse of the suffering and travail that at this moment rack nearly every family in Eastern Nigeria . As these pages will show, it is an episode that rivals in its inhumanity the fate of the Armenian Christians in the Ottoman Empire or the Jews in Nazi Germany .
EASTERNERS IN NORTHERN NIGERIA
First, however, it is pertinent to explain the presence of large numbers OF easterners, mainly Christians, in the midst of Northerners, most of whom are Muslims. The amalgamation of Southern and Northern Nigeria by the British in 1914 obviously established a wider political and economic horizon for the inhabitants of the two areas. It also posed a new kind of challenge to the innate dynamism of Easterners. Because Easterners had whole-heartedly accepted the modern ideas and techniques which the Europeans had introduced, and to which the Northern Muslims
turned their backs, they had come to possess the skill and expertise essential for progress in the 20th century. As a result, Easterners were employed in large numbers by Government establishments and foreign firms in Northern Nigeria . Again, the distribution of national institutions, projects and utilities, most of which by-passed the East (see Appendix), acted as an incentive for Easterners to settle outside their own region as employees of Central Government and its agencies. The success of these Easterners outside the East in turn induced a number of those they had left behind in the East to follow in their wake. Some of them saw and grasped opportunities for setting up private enterprises which they were able to expand in subsequent years. This included the expansion of trade within the North and between the North and the South, the operation of modern transport services and the development of various small and medium-scale
industries and businesses. This chain reaction dating back to 1914 accounts for the fact that until very recently over 2,000,000 Easterners were scattered in Nigeria outside the East, with the greater proportion residing in the vast area of the North.
These Easterners have succeeded in contributing a substantial quota towards the economic, social and political evolution of modern Nigeria . Nevertheless, their attempts to integrate themselves fully into the life of their fellow countrymen in the North were discouraged by Northerners and, particularly, by their feudal rulers. The Easterners and non-Northerners were restricted in most of the towns to what was called Sabon Gari (strangers quarters) and in spite of the impact which their energies where making on many aspects of life in the North the majority of them were, in this way, kept isolated from the main-stream of Northern society.
NORTHERN ATTITUDE
Northerners have recently awakened from the stupor into which they lulled themselves for so many decades and their amour-prope has goaded them into seeking for scapegoats to justify their retardation. They have conveniently found these among the toiling Eastern Nigerians resident in the North. Furthermore, with the coming of independence the Northerners have convinced themselves that the only condition for peace in Nigeria must be the maintenance of their dominance in the Central Government. They see Easterners, who, it might be mentioned, were in the forefront of the nationalist movement towards independence, as the major obstacle to the attainment of this position.
Consequently, from time to time the Northerners have unmistakably demonstrated their hatred and hostility towards the presence of the Eastern “foreigners” in their towns; from time to time they have perpetrated horrendous atrocities against innocent, defenceless and unsuspecting Easterners. For example, at Jos in 1945, a sudden savage attack by Northerners took the Easterners completely by surprise, and before the situation could be brought under control the bodies of Eastern men, women and children littered the streets and their property worth thousands of pounds
reduced to shambles.
Again in May 1953, hordes of Northerners suddenly invaded the Sabon Gari at Kano and hundreds of Easterners were clubbed down, matcheted, speared or killed with poison arrows. A large section of the quarter was at the same time devastated so that those who escaped death were rendered homeless and destitute. It should be recalled here what the present Sultan of Sokoto, Sir Abubakar, said exactly one month before the massacres:
“… I am concerned that those who look to me for spiritual guidance should realize what a shock to Muslim ideas of decency and morals the action of the Mau Mau have been. Recently an atrocious massacre of men, women, and children has been perpetrated by Mau Mau in a peaceful village of their fellow Africans. No Muslim can condone such atrocities, and I consider it my duty as Sarkin Musulmi (Commander of the faithful) to warn my fellow Muslims against any attempt to introduce into this country any catchword or slogan suggesting that such activities as those of the Mau Mau could ever be adopted or tolerated here. No Muslim can think of such deeds as those of the Mau Mau without horror and detestation”.
London Times, 14th April, 1953.
In spite of this assurance it was these same so-called Muslims who perpetrated the Kano atrocities of May 1953 against Easterners, and this pattern of assurance preceding an attack when the prey is unsuspecting has been the main tactic followed by the Northerners in 1966.”
NIGERIAN POGROM
&
JANUARY 15: BEFORE and AFTER
3
“The anti-Igbo mood, he further alleged, found a ready platform for explosion and used as a rallying cry to mobilise Northern Nigeria and some parts of the rest of the Federation to advance genocidal plot against Ndi Igbo. The fiction and falsehood of Igbo coup has long been admitted by some of the major actors in that episodes (example, Lt. Gen. T.Y Danjuma in Nigerian Civil War 1967-1970 edited by Major-General H.B. Momoh P.373).”
We have looked at the presentations by both an international body and by the government of Eastern Nigeria , now let’s look an ARTICLE on the presentation by Ndi Igbo with backbone and spine to the Oputa Panel.
The GUARDIAN
Igbo Losses Counted at Oputa Panel
By Emmanuel Onwubiko,
26 July 2001
Abuja—Dark memories of the Nigerian civil war echoed at the Justice Chukwudifu Oputa panel yesterday as Ohanaeze Ndigbo and the Arewa Consultative Forum engaged each other in a fierce dispute over the cause of the 1967-70 war.
Ohanaeze's presentation, which was articulated by Uche Chukwumerije, a former information minister, was hinged on a thesis that the North, working in concert with some other parts of the country, embarked on a deliberate programme to marginalise and exterminate the Igbo.
Ohanaeze said the 1966 coup was an expression of the anti-Igbo sentiment, explaining that the Igbo drew the ire of their persecutors because of their enterprise in all spheres human endeavour which led them to all areas of Nigeria.
But, Secretary to Arewa Forum, Col. Hammeed Ali disagreed when he hinted that the war was spurred by the 1966 coup which he said was an Igbo coup. He also tried to exonerate the North, saying Buhari's coup of December, 1983 was not a Northern coup.
Earlier, the Ohanaeze listed its major grouse as marginalisation.
According to the group, to help us understand our case on marginalisation and disempowerment, the petition defines this key concept. Marginalisation is purposeful denial of rights of some members of a given unit by some other members of the group who control the power of allocation of resources. Marginalisation must be understood as fundamentally different from marginality, which means loss of rights through self-inflicted under-development.
In all the realms of
public endeavour, Ndi Igbo have the requisite manpower and natural resources. But their rights to a fair share of Nigeria 's resources have been consistently denied them by Federal authorities.
Continuing, the group stated that: It is necessary to emphasise the fundamental difference between Ndi Igbo's case of disempowerment and the new noisy national orchestra of marginalisation slogans most of which are raised to mock and trivialise our case. The distinctive difference is deliberate exclusion: ours is a case of deliberate exclusion of Ndi Igbo from common resources by a combination of ethnic groups which control the centre.
Indeed, the observed consistent pattern of discriminary and exclusionary responses of the Nigerian system to Ndi Igbo in the commanding heights of the polity suggests that our exclusion is not only deliberate but also malicious.
Ohaneze described marginalisation of the Igbo to mean the denial of right to life, right to means of livelihood, right to human dignity, right to freedom of movement, right to freedom from discrimination, right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria and other rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Tracing the alleged injustices against the Igbo before the civil war, he said The republican spirit of Ndi Igbo and their individual drive, expressing itself in a flair for fair competition in all spheres, encouraged them to exercise their citizenship rights all over Nigeria . The endeavours of Ndi Igbo, like those of other Nigerian citizens, were taking place in an atmosphere (so we thought) of brotherly debates and differences in our fledgling multi-ethnic democracy.
But Ndi Igbo soon began to notice sinister stains in the responses of some national leaders to their differences with Ndi Igbo. Public statements of leaders of ruling political groups in Northern and Western Nigeria began to betray a disposition to extermination or total expulsion of Ndi Igbo as their
acceptable solution of what they now saw as Igbo problem. Speeches of Northern Nigeria Ministers, as recorded in Hansard of March, 1964, and the anti-Igbo incitements in a booklet, UPGAISM, published by Western Government (1965) portrayed the new mood.
The anti-Igbo mood, he further alleged, found a ready platform for explosion and used as a rallying cry to mobilise Northern Nigeria and some parts of the rest of the Federation to advance genocidal plot against Ndi Igbo. The fiction and falsehood of Igbo coup has long been admitted by some of the major actors in that episodes (example, Lt. Gen. T.Y Danjuma in Nigerian Civil War 1967-1970 edited by Major-General H.B. Momoh P.373).
According to Chukwumerije, the brewing genocidal mood served and in response to anti-Igbo incitements, Igbo citizens in Northern Nigeria were massacred in three waves of pogrom in most sadistic and inhuman methods that made Jewish holocaust appear like mercy killings. 50,000 Igbos were slaughtered. Some of the inhuman methods of slaughter were recorded in affidavits of eye witness.
He added: The massacres which evidently were well planned and co-ordinated by ruling authorities had the character of genocidal attacks on Ndi Igbo.
The acquiescence of other ethnic groups in the rest of Nigeria emphasised the isolation and helplessness of Ndi Igbo. The insensitivity of the Federal Government and its failure to implement a peace agreement (the Aburi Accord) compounded the sense in security of Ndi Igbo. When the Federal Government proceeded with an economic blockage and ill-motivated balkanisation of Eastern Region, Ndi Igbo were left in no doubt that the genocidal plot had thickened. Eastern Nigeria was forced to declare the Republic of Biafra on May 29, 1967.
Ohanaeze continued: The petition offers a little, just little, glimpse into the enormity of the holocaust that forced us out of Nigeria - the masacre of Igbo women and children who were deceived into
flocking to railway stations in search of passenger trains to take them home, forcible collection of Igbo female students from schools and herding of them into leper colonies, to be defiled by lepers; the slaughtering in the transit zone of Middle-Belt of Igbo refugees who managed to escape the wrath of far North; the refusal virtually all Nigerians to give protection to any Easterner; the active involvement of law-enforcement agencies in the pogroms; and the exodus of 2 million people in flight from a country that has rejected them and that has offered them nothing but a mass grave. Indeed the future of no future confronting Ndi Igbo at this time was symbolised by the fate of Igbo babies in the Kano railway holocaust.
On the atrocities during civil war (1967-1970), the Pan-Igbo group said:
A 30-month civil war ensued as a result of Nigeria 's attempt to quell what she described as a civil war. The civil war..gave Nigeria a perfect excuse to cast Ndi Igbo in the role of treasonable felons and wreckers of the nation.
Nigeria's prosecution of the war violated all aspects of the Geneva Convention and all code of civilized behaviour. Indeed, the violations were carried out with so much glee and abandon that it was clear that the war was an earnest pursuit of the programme of ethnic cleansing
begun in 1966.
The committee of International Jurists, foreign press and other Independent observers have also testified to this fact. Indeed, the international Committee on The Investigation of Crimes of Genocide whose investigation included interview of 1,082 people representing the two sides of the conflict concluded thus through its investigator (Dr. Mensah of Ghana); 'Finally, I am of the opinion that tin many of the cases cited to me hatred of the Biafrans (mainly Igbos) and a wish to exterminate them was a foremost motivational factor.'
Listed in the petition as methods through which
the violations took place are:
the genocidal content of Nigeria 's war slogans;
the use of starvation as an instrument of war;
the massacre of civilians in conquered areas;
the target of air attacks on concentrated civilian habitations;
rape, torture and dehumanization of Igbo women;
destruction of properties; animals and everything as in a scorched earth policy, and
torture and murder of war prisoners and civilians who surrendered. Over one million people, the petition added, died during the war through these atrocities.
On the atrocities and disempowerment immediately after the war (1970-1975), the apex Igbo group stated thus:
Nigeria's proclamation of a peace formula of three Rs (Reconciliation, Rehabilitation, and Reconstruction) turned out in practice to
be a smokescreen behind which she continued the war against Ndi Igbo by other means. Besides the continuation of killings in the first three months after the end of the war, the new method was the strategy of disempowerment and strangulation in all areas of public endeavour.
The policy of economic disempowerment of the Igbo, alleged the group were:
Federal government's vindictive enactment of the abandoned property law, and the consequent dispossession of Igbo property owners of their houses and plots in Rivers State as abandoned property, in a ploy to incite the Easterners against one another.
The impoverishment of all Ndi Igbo through payment of a flat paltry sum of £20 irrespective of individual savings at the end of the war,
the intentional timing of the enactment of the indigenisation decree at the
height of total destruction of the purchasing power of Ndi Igbo;
the denial of the reconstruction of utilities, structures and infrastructure damaged during the war;
excision of oil petroleum-rich areas of Igbo land, and exclusion of other mineral deposits found in Igbo land from the benefits of operations of umbrella organisations like OMPADEC or its successor, NDDC;
mass dismissal of Igbo public servants;
continuation of starvation policy and rejection of aids from foreign aid/donors;
treatment of Igbos as social pariahs in all the states of Nigeria;
the exclusion of Ndi Igbo from the higher echelons of policy-making;
manipulation of census figures to reduce Igbo ethnic group to a minority status; and
Igbophobia as the basis of creating states. Categorising what it called atrocities and
disempowerment between 1975 to date, Ohanaeze stated:
What would have been dismissed as unfortunate excesses of revengeful excitement in the flush of victory soon settled into a policy of marginalisation and disempowerment of Ndi Igbo. Successive governments maintained a disturbing continuity of a policy of strangulation of Ndi Igbo in spite of all rhetorics to the contrary. Public policy and practice since the mid-seventies to date have followed the same pattern.
In the political arena, observed pattern of appointments suggest that the Federal Government is decided that no Igbo man should
be trusted with a key sensitive command position for a long while. In the public service, our share of federal employments is far below the constitutional stipulations of the constitution and the quota chart of the Federal Character Commission.
The history of the creation of states clearly suggests a policy of containment and siege, a policy designed to reduce the demographic leverage and financial strength of Ndi Igbo. Lastly, a new height in political disempowerment has been reached in the most blatant marginalisation by the present regime of President Obasanjo of South-East zone which gave it the second largest electoral support in the presidential democratic election of 1999.
In the social realm, the racial discrimination against Ndi Igbo continues to rage, unabated. The blood-chilling consistency in which Igbo citizens have always been scape goats of all bloody riots in Nigeria confirms that they enjoy less protection of the law than any other ethnic nationality in the republic.
Commending President Obasanjo, the group said there have been some positive developments since then, May 29, 1999.
Commenting on their prayers the group stated
that it asked the panel to order payment of reparations and appropriate restitution as a healing balm not just to Ndi Igbo but to the nation.
Ohanaeze said the remedies sought include financial compensations for bereaved and humiliated families in respect of the murdered, the maimed, the raped and the dehumanised; financial compensation for wrong dismissals; financial compensations for the havoc of scorched earth policy; reversals of economic marginalisation policy, and restitutions where possible.
But financial and economic redresses
can never adequately compensate psychological wounds. The deepest wound of Ndi Igbo is a haunting spectre of insecurity, hanging like a dark cloud over a persistent ugly objective reality that continues to feed on traditional prejudice. Periodic anti-Igbo riots continue to warn Ndi Igbo that Nigeria has learnt nothing and has forgotten nothing.
Our prayer therefore emphasises two requests as the key reliefs. One is a national apology. The other is an assurance of Ozoemena! - a national vow that violations of our human rights will never occur again. Indeed, the essence of all our prayers is summed in our relief.
Making suggestions on how to move the nation forward, the group asserted: Our Constitution must address more explicitly and unequivocally than it has done hitherto the foundation question of the character of our Federal union. Should Nigeria be a mosaic of self-reinforcing ethnic mini-sovereignties barely interacting horizontally but intensively engaged vertically in a cockpit fight for the largest loot from the centre? Or, a dynamic multi-ethnic community purposefully evolving towards the end state of healthy national integration? It is surprising that our utterances and actions have shown that this basic choice has not been made after 40 years of togetherness.
If our choice is a multi-ethnic nation, as forward-looking patriots should prefer, then
the constitution should be supported with necessary institutional arrangements which should invest more energy and resources on three areas:
· A people-oriented economic development plan based on social justice and equity;
· A political system that protects the sovereignty of the people from the disorientation of free market forces;
· A genuinely progressive national ideology that replaces the cent and hypocrisy of primordial irredentism with the civic values of a modern or purposefully modernising nation-state;
· The Constitution should strengthen residency and citizenship rights vis-a-vis aboriginal rights; and
· Our criminal code must be revised to establish responsibility for instigated mob, arsons and pogroms in the guise of spontaneous communal riots. There must no longer be a hiding place for unknown soldiers and anonymous thugs. The law should devise a way of laying collective responsibility, especially in reparation and restitution, for arsons and massacres, on the host communities and organisations.
Besides, the group advised that Nigeria should settle for a system that encourages production, in place of consumption through a flat rule-of-the thumb approach that shares all sharable federal resources equally among the six zones only.
Ohanaeze dismissed insinuations that their petition was basically complaining of marginalisation saying: We conclude our Petition by emphasising once again the point that our case is fundamental to the growth of political democracy and civil society in Nigeria . It is deeper than 'marginalisation' as currently misused. We tender this Petition with faith and trepidation.
Earlier, Oputa had summoned a former Comptroller of Prisons in River State , E.E Nkang to appear on September 23 to tell the commission where the remains of the Ogoni nine executed alongside Ken-Saro-Wiwa on November 10, 1995 were kept. This summons was at the instance of Femi Falana who represented MOSOP.
The panel will today continue hearing the Ohanaeze petition.
A journalist with Nigerian Television Authority (NTA), Yusuf Jibo was summoned by the panel to explain why he produced and showed a programme considered unsavoury by Ohanaeze.
A spectacular scenario that was created yesterday was the physical presence of an array of the nation's choicest dignitaries like Prof. Ben Nwabueze (SAN), Alhaji Gambo Jimeta, Gen. Haruna, Alhaji Isah Funtua, Dr. Joe Nwaorgu, even as a galaxy of Senior Advocates like Chief Tony Mogbo (SAN); Joe Gadzama (SAN) and Chief O. J. J Okocha (SAN) was present.
Diverse groups that were colourfully decked also created a carnival - like atmosphere, during and after the emotionally charged session during which Colonel Ali was jeered and booed at.
Col. Ali, also a former military administrator of Kaduna State during the Abacha regime and a member of the Ogoni Special Military Tribunal which tried and convicted the Ogoni nine led by Dr. Ken Saro-Wiwa faulted the response he filed in to the commission challenging the position of the Ohanaeze because, in his words, I did not read most of the authorities cited in the written submission of the Arewa Forum.
Amid jeering, Ali stated that the military men plotted coups in the past with loyal officers from the same background.
But when the Ohanaeze legal representative, Chief Tony Mogbo (SAN) sought to know his opinion on the 1966, 1990, and 1983 coups, Ali said: my lord the 1966 coup was an Igbo coup, that of 1990 led by Orkah was a Delta coup while that of 11983 was basically a Buhari coup and not a northern coup.
A major
dramatic scenario was played up when Col. Ali (rtd) admitted that; my lord, in making our submission, we cited some quotations from some authors, but we only took what we wanted from them and considered the rest of the same quotation factitious.
Some other lawyers who appeared in the session were Mr. R. F. Godwin for the River State government summoned as a witness in the Ohanaeze petition even as Mr. Yahaya Mohammed and Prof. Auwalu Yadudu appeared for Arewa Consultative Forum whose chairman M. D. Yusuf was present at yesterday's session.
Other lawyers included
Mr. Sebastine Hon for the Joint Action Committee on the Middle Belt, Nuhu Ribadu, for the Commissioner of Police Kano State and Yisa A. N for General Wushishi and General I. B. Babangida.
Chukwumerije and Col. Ben Gbulie, two witnesses for Ohanaeze will also finish their cross examination session to be conducted by lawyers representing the respondents in the matter today. Chukwumerije was partly cross examined by counsel to Arewa yesterday.
Meanwhile, barring unforeseen impediments, the seemingly intractable feud between Shell Petroleum Development Company and
the Ogoni would be resolved on September 12 at a tripartite meeting between the feuding parties, Federal and River State government.
This reconciliatory tone was struck at a peace parley initiated yesterday in Abuja by the Oputa panel.
To: ndiigb...@yahoogroups.com; umu...@yahoogroups.com; IgboWor...@yahoogroups.com; BrainsOfNig...@yahoogroups.com; AlaIgboW...@yahoogroups.com; NIgerianW...@yahoogroups.com; wi...@googlegroups.com
From: o_ok...@yahoo.co.uk
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:58:17 +0000 |
