By Chike H Izuegbu,Esq.

(1)Nigeria is a signatory to numerous international treaties and conventions that recognized the right to self-determination as now espoused by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)(see: Article 1 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article xx of the African Charter of Human and People’s Right etc). That notwithstanding, Section 12 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic  of Nigeria(as amended),1999 (hereinafter referred to CFRN) subject these International treaties to domestication for it to be effective within Nigerian Federation, S2(1) of the CFRN provided that Nigeria shall remain one indivisible  and indissoluble state. It also appears that the Supremacy clause as envisaged by s.1(1) and (3) of the CFRN renders all laws including international treaties subject to the CFRN where any of its provision is inconsistent with any provision of the CFRN.It follows that the Supreme CFRN Prohibits the division of the Country.

(2)However, a communal reading of Sections 1,2 of CFRN(already cited hereinabove) and Sections 39,40,41 and 42 of the CFRN which protects the right to expression/thought/conscience, assembly/association, free movement and non-discrimination respectively does not appear to bar secessionist goal/agenda/chant etc. provided it is expressed peacefully with all mark of civility. In construing the Supremacy of the CFRN as to this regard the Supreme Court (Per Katsina-Alu JSC) in Action Congress v INEC (2007)12 NWLR (Pt. 1048) @ 259 Paragraphs B-D said:

It is a settled principle that a provision of the constitution or a statue should not be interpreted in isolation but rather in the context of the constitution as a whole.

Similarly,the Supreme Court  in Ellelu-Habeeb & Anor.v AG Federation (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt.1318)@ pg 520-521 said:

Each provision of the Constitution is supreme and thus forming part of the law. A section of the Constitution must not be read against the background of the other sections to achieve a harmonious whole.

It follows, that the constitution recognized the voice of self-determination when a communal effect is given to Sections 39-42 of the CFRN provided there is no treasonable overt act to unseat the President or the Governor of a state.We heard that voice recently in Scotland,Spain and even now in Taiwan.Why then the proscribing of IPOB and their consequent Baptism as “terrorists”by the Nigerian State albeit when they pursue their goal peacefully.

(3)By the christening of IPOB as a terrorist organization by the sovereign state of Nigeria inconsistent with the international standard of the definition of terrorism now places the IPOB at the mercy of comity of nations. It is not the best approach in a pluralistic forceful integration like Nigeria where marginalization and ethnicity is a living reality and appears to be still living with the country as far as one can forsee.Such debasing definition of a group espousing self-determination albeit peacefully tantamount to political persecution. As such are entitled to asylum. I am not aware of any international law that define peaceful secessionist agitators as terrorists. I doubt if there is any.

(4)By the Provision of Article XIV of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, to wit: “Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. “Sub 2 reads: “This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecution genuinely arising from nonpolitical crimes or from acts contrary to the purpose and principle of the United Nations.’’  It follows since IPOB has been declared  terrorists by the Nigerian State inconsistent with international best practices makes every card carrying member of IPOB vulnerable to political  persecution and as such are entitled to asylum not just from UK but states across the globe.Thus,the UK government acted within it international human rights obligations.

(5)Article xx (1) of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights provided as follows: “All People shall have the right to existence. They shall have unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen. “It also appear that the Charter has been domesticated and elevated as a deemed Act of National Assembly of Nigeria. Thus in Elrufai v.Senate of the National Assembly (2016) 1NWLR (Pt.1494)@page 539 Paragraphs A-C the Appeal Court (Per Tur JCA) said: “It will seem to me that the deemed Act of National Assembly (African Charter) ought to override rules and practice of courts. “African Charter was domesticated as a local legislation in 1983 now referred to under Nigerian Law as African Charter on Human and People’s Rights(Enforcement and Ratification) Act 2 1983 now contained in Cap 10 Laws of the Federation,1990.The Supreme Court in Gani Fawehinmi v Abacha [2000] 4 SCNJ 401 also validate the said Charter as a deemed Act of the National Assembly.  If then the above is the correct position of the Nigerian Law, why then the labeling IPOB as terrorists? What it means is that if IPOB members were to be terrorists in US many Igbos would be cooling off at the Guantanamo bay US detention facility in Cuba. It also means that every card carrying member of the IPOB will now be subject to trial under Nigerian Anti-terrorism Act and be place under terrorist watch list like Boko-Haram.

(6)It therefore follows that all IPOBS in Nigeria are facing political crime and as such they are political fugitives, and by extension are entitled to asylum. And once granted such person(s) so granted cannot be surrendered or extradited by the requested state to the requesting state.Prof. M.O.U Gasiokwu in his Master Piece “ECOWAS Freedom of Citizenship and Free Movement” declared at page 225 :”On the other hand ,while the surrender of a fugitive criminal may be sought for a wide range of offences, there are offences like political offences, religious offences and military offences for which extradition may not be honored.” For example the British Government refused the extradition of Gen. Yakubu Gowon on request of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria under General Obasanjo on the ground that the offence for which his extradition was sought was a political offences. He was alleged to have played a conspiring role in the coup led by late Col. Dimka that unseated the government of late Gen. Murtala Mohammed.

(7)Though what constitutes political offence is a choice of a state, it is unheard of in the international terrain that espousing of right to self-determination albeit peacefully is a non-political crime.Consequently,the British grant of asylum to IPOB members is in track with local and international law.

Author: Chike H Izuegbu,Esq. B.Sc.(Hons),LL.B(Hons),BL,Dip.(Mgt.). AIBA.ASM,GMNIM is a Nigerian Lawyer with a bias in International Law and Diplomacy.