Richmond C. Amadi is an independent journalist, Book Publisher, member of RSU Alumni, Researcher (currently researching with Researchgate.net), Writer, Motivational Speaker. He is a BSc Holder in Office and Information Management, and Diploma holder in Management all from Rivers State University. Currently doing his MSc with RSU. Contact him on Richmond.firstname.lastname@example.org or Amadirichmondc@gmail.com All Social Platforms: @amadirichmondc
We can authoritatively tell you, our dear readers that the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, regards to his order to IPOB family units in Japan has not said ATTACK PRESIDENT MOHAMMADU BUHARI unless otherwise beyond our comprehension and reach.
With what we retrieved and had published and quoted in different posts, Kanu said:
“The formidable IPOB family in Japan is hereby placed on direct order to ensure the impostor Jubril Al-Sudani, masquerading as the late dictator Mubammadu Buhari, is arrested and handed over to the authorities when he sets foot on Japanese soil. He is not only a fake president, he is wanted for mass murder and crimes against humanity for his role in previous and ongoing genocide in Biafraland”
“Under Japanese law an impostor is a common criminal and subject to citizens arrest. International diplomatic protocol as it relates to visiting heads of state is not applicable in this instance because whoever Abba Kyari is sending to Japan is not the real Buhari. We must make sure he is apprehended and handed over to the police in Japan”
“Any legal fall-out emanating from any confrontation will end up in a Japanese court where we will be able to establish before the world that Jubril is indeed a fake Buhari”
Throughout his statement, the word ‘ATTACK’ was not used. And he mentioned law, police, which in all essence applied to peaceful demonstrations.
NOTE: You are free to politely write to us, let’s analyze this together.
Is our responsibility to ensure Jubril’s arrest, Kanu tell Biafrans, Yorubas, Hausas, M/Beltans in Japan
Meanwhile, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on Saturday 24 August 2019 urged Nigerians residence in Japan to intensify effort to ensure “Jubril-Buhari” is arrested by Japan authorities as he visits the Asian country.
The IPOB leader, in a post on his Twitter handle (@mazinnamdikanu), said is a sheer responsibility of all Nigerian ethnicities residence in Japan, including Yorubas, Hausas, Biafrans (Igbos) and Middle Beltans etc to make sure President Mohammadu Buhari handed over to police.
In his word: ” A call to action. If you’re from Biafra, Yoruba, Hausa, Middle Belt, living in Japan, it’s our responsibility to ensure that the impostor Jubril-Buhari is disgraced and arrested.
“Enough is enough!
“Our destiny is in our hands.
President Buhari had scheduled to depart Abuja to Japan on Sunday to participate in the Seventh Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD7) holding in the City of Yokohama, August 28-30, 2019.
Kanu, however, had earlier ordered IPOB branch in Japan to ensure Buhari is disgraced as step into the country on Sunday for the conference, adding that Japanese Law does not encourage impostors to parade in its country.
Part of his post, tittled: announcement order, said: “Any legal fall-out emanating from any confrontation will end up in a Japanese court where we will be able to establish before the world that Jubril is indeed a fake Buhari.
The order, since then has caused panic in the region. Nigerians on their social media, have divided, argued that the order will see light of the day not while majority have given their nod to the call.
Attack order: Putting record straight, what my client actually said, Kanu’s Lawyer
The indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has clarified statement made by its leader Mazi Nnamdi Kanu during his last Programme on Radio Biafra, and his social posts, which has been twisted to be attack order.
In a statement by Special Counsel to the group’s leader, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, titled: “Putting the record straight on Ekweremadu, SE Governors and IPOB” and retrieved by Scannews 24.
In bid to correct the impression, the Barrister refuted the statement credited to the IPOB leader as circulated on media and social media.
According to him, Kanu never made any threat of levying violence or to Physically attack South East Governor or elected officials seen overseas.
What Kanu actually said, according to Aloy, is that Nigerian elected officials, especially those from South East who derelicted and still derelict in their duties to the people and prefer to junket and gallivant abroad should be ‘prepared to answer tough questions from the Nigerian/South East diaspora’.
TheI write as the Special Counsel to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), and I can tell you authoritatively that my Clients, particularly Nnamdi Kanu never made any threats of levying violence or to “physically attack” SE Governors or elected officials when sighted ooverseas.
What Kanu had said, and it’s verifiable, is that Nigerian elected officials, especially those from SE (including Governors), who derelicted and still derelict in their duties to the people and prefer to junket and gallivant abroad should be ‘prepared to answer tough questions from the Nigerian/SE diaspora’. And such engagements will be up close and personal; or as American say: in your face. It’s left to conjecture why the Umahi-led SE Governors, more than all others, are the ones getting too personal with this.
In plain terms, the so-called threat is not of violence or battery but of gutsy demonstrations or protests, of tough questions or heckling, of getting really close to the target. Therefore, Kanu never threatened or sanctioned any threat of actual physical violence, assault or battery, or anything that is illegal or criminal. And he had also stated that you don’t have to be afraid if you have done nothing wrong.
So, what I believe that is fueling this misconstruction of the true import of what Kanu had said is this: Nigerians at home hardly carry their protests to the face of their elected officials. They do complain but they do ever so quietly and then become cowed once in the immediate vicinity or presence of these officials. Still, this is a dramatic departure from the era of Jonathan when Nigerians, including Buhari, were permitted much space to protest as they desired.
The Nigerian diaspora is different. They demonstrate to your face, they heckle you, they come very close and express their discontent in uncomfortable words and actions that these officials are not used to back home but which, however, comport with how citizens of those foreign nations protest or confront their leaders in the public. That IPOB now appears to be leading it is a direct consequence of its international reach, coupled with the repressive environment for protests in Nigeria.
I think Nigerians, particularly Igbos need to see the Ekweremadu incident in Germany from the prism of the pertinent German law, which, as we now know, is unarguably permissive of it. So, even as it might implicate a cultural conflict, we just have to accept that – in many countries – citizens are allowed more space to hold their leaders to account.
A few days ago, the Channels TV aired a live telephonic interview with the Nuremberg police chief, where the officer stated very clearly and repeatedly that the incident was not criminal and that no charges would be brought. He suggested that it was a case of mere political heckling, which is permissible under German law. So, I ask: If the place of the incident did not consider it a crime, why should any other person consider it as one?
As regards reconciliation with Igbo elected political leaders, the IPOB had, in the recent past, made public their basic conditions for reconciliation.
They include particularly the following:
(a)Immediate and unconditional de-proscription of IPOB and delisting it as a terrorist organization.
(b)A truth and reconciliation commission on the Python Dance lethal military operations of September 2017.
(c)A public apology for the extrajudicial killings of IPOB members and desecration of the palace of an Igbo traditional ruler at Afaraukwu, Abia State.
(d)A genuine dialogue with IPOB on its demands for a referendum on the restoration of Biafra.
(e)Discontinuance of the ongoing prosecution of IPOB members and forbearance of any future arrests and prosecutions.
Is this asking for too much?
Aloy Ejimakor is of Adulbert Legal Services