Tag: Nigeria

Posted on

Why An Independent Igbo-Israelite State Is Necessary In West Africa

The Igbo nation has a vibrant and resourceful population of 50 million. Within this teeming population there is a sufficiently developed bank of human resources capital living in a physical geographical space known as Igbo land. Igbo people have an unmistakable unique identity, a well-developed set of national cultural values and clearly defined and distinct world views. On the whole the Igbo nation has everything it takes to exist and manage their affairs independently of other people. So, the Igbo are prepared to take their own fate in their hands and will not for any reason continue to play any second fiddle or remain subservient to any other group of people. Therefore, Igbo people are out to do everything in their power to achieve Igbo self-determination and political independence from Nigeria.

On the 29th of May 1966 the Igbo renounced their Nigerian citizenship forever. Starting from that fateful day the Igbo determined to reclaim and reassume their national sovereignty and political independence outside Nigeria. That day marked the beginning of the Nigerian state’s pogrom of the Igbo and other ethnic nationalities from the former Eastern Region. The aim and scope of the pogrom was the total extermination of all Igbo from Nigeria. This made the Igbo along with these other affected peoples and Igbo neighbors to secede from Nigeria as the Republic of Biafra. On the 30th of May 1967 the Biafrans unilaterally declared the independence of their region from Nigeria. After the declaration of independence the Nigerian state declared war on the new country on 6th July 1967. The war between the two states lasted till the 15th of January 1970. In the end Biafra was defeated. The Igbo got reabsorbed into Nigeria. But many systemic policies were put in place by the Nigerian state to marginalize and further punish the Igbo for attempting to secede.

After the war in spite of the many oppressive state policies, threats, intimidations and actual killings of the Igbo, they still refused to be deterred and continued clandestinely the struggle for a total and absolute secession and independence of Igbo land from Nigeria. But unlike the 1967 to 1970 struggle for Biafra independence, the new and ongoing struggle to free Igbo from Nigeria is exclusively an Igbo initiative and project which does not involve any of their neighboring ethnic nationalities or their lands. The extent of this Igbo state covers all and only Igbo lands as they were before the advent of the European colonialists who amalgamated the different ethnic nationalities with divergent and irreconcilable cultures, worldviews and lands into a dysfunctional unitary Nigerian country. In this new struggle for Igbo independence, the special circumstances that necessitated the joint multi ethnic independent project in the past are not present. Therefore, this new Igbo state is not Biafra and cannot justifiably be called Biafra because it has no resemblance to the former joint multi-ethnic struggle for an independent state in the 1960s.   

This new agitation for Igbo independence that began in 1970 soon after the Biafra War is fundamentally different from the 1967 to 1970 Biafra war for independence. The 1960s struggle is what I generally refer to as Ojukwu’s Biafra. In this new struggle it is simply and unambiguously the struggle for the creation of a modern and exclusive Igbo-only independent state. This fundamental difference between the old and the new struggles cannot be overemphasized and no one needs to misunderstand it.

This difference should be understood in the light that it is typically said that every generation fights their own battle in their own unique way based on their unique circumstances. What drove the former and what is driving the present movements are basically different. In the 1960s starting from May 29, 1966 the systemic countrywide mass killing of the Igbo and the destruction of their properties began and it was geared towards cleansing out the ethnic Igbo from the Nigerian space. This was what produced the declaration of Biafra independence.

Starting from 29th May 1966 these government backed killings of the Igbo continued throughout Nigeria for one year despite all efforts by the Igbo to reconcile and make peace with Nigeria. After one year of unabated killings and destruction of Igbo properties and, with the death toll of over 100,000 Igbo and the other Easterners who were the victims jointly decided to secede from Nigeria. So, they unilaterally declared independence from Nigeria as the Republic of Biafra. For them Biafra was their best move to protect and preserve the lives and properties of all those within the boundaries of the new state. To prove their determined resolve to defend themselves and their land they fought a bitter war for about three years which ended up costing the Igbo a total of 3.1 million lives in addition to the 400,000 deaths of the other Biafrans.

Contrasting the 1960s Secession Effort with 2020 Effort

The 1960s effort to free Igbo from Nigeria was mostly necessitated by Nigeria’s pogrom against the Igbo and the other easterners. This is not exactly the same with today’s Igbo’s decision to leave Nigeria. In this 2020 and as it has been since the end of the war in 1970 Igbo are not fighting to free themselves from Nigeria entirely because of the ongoing injustices and killings against them. Since the end of the war the Igbo have endured in Nigeria many oppressive marginalizing polices and systemic denial of opportunities and without doubt, these unjust and wicked treatments have been bad enough. But today’s Igbo decision to leave Nigeria is based on the simple reason that they do not wish to remain Nigerians anymore. They would instead be Igbo. As a people they would rather exist and live under their own Igbo identity and manage their own affairs within an independent Igbo nation state outside Nigeria.

As we already noted, Ojukwu’s Biafra was created along the boundary lines of the defunct Eastern Region which he presided over as the governor prior to Biafra declaration of independence. The irony of it is that Eastern Region of Nigeria split up Igbo population in two with one on the east and the other half on west banks of the Niger River. This split the Igbo resulted in the Western not being included in Ojukwu’s Biafra map. That exclusion of course is unacceptable to the Igbo. The Eastern Region was created that way by the British colonialists. They were obviously insensitive to the ugly divisive consequences of splitting up brothers so long as it suited their business convenience and interests. The boundaries of the Eastern Region were established to serve the business and economic interests of the foreign colonialists rather than to work in the political and economic interests of the indigenous peoples.

After considering the circumstances surrounding the creation of the former Eastern Region along whose boundaries were based Ojukwu’s Biafra, the Igbo totally rejected to adopt the defunct Biafra’s map for the new Igbo country. Among the obvious reasons the Igbo give for rejecting the old Biafra map is that the borders were established by the same foreigners who created Nigeria. Over the years most analysts of the reasons for Nigeria’s failure as a nation have come to the consensus that the Nigerian experiment failed principally because the foreigners who created the Nigerian state failed to take into consideration the irreconcilable differences that exist among the various ethnic peoples and cultures who were forced to live together as citizens of the same country. Unfortunately it is very clear that the same factors that orchestrated Nigeria’s failure are present within the borders of the defunct Biafra. Ojukwu’s Biafra boundaries split Igbo people and their land and this is unacceptable and will not apply to the new Igbo state.

Igbo and Biafra are not One and the Same

Prior to 1967 Igbo people were never known as Biafrans. At no other time in history except for the brief period of two and half years (May 30, 1967 to January 15, 1970) were Igbo people ever identified as Biafrans. Yet, since the past five decades after the war there has been this prevalent misconception which has left some people confused. Since after the war, some people have tended to use Igbo and Biafra identities interchangeably when referencing the Igbo. This is wrong. The truth is that Igbo people along with other ethnic nationalities used the name Biafra and its identity to fight a war known as Biafra War from 1967 to 1970. Biafra War was fought by the Igbo and others from the former Eastern Region as a joint effort to free their people and lands and gain independence from Nigeria. Unfortunately, the Biafran project failed as the war ended in the defeat of Biafra.

At the war’s end Igbo people then reverted to their original Igbo national identity and ceased being Biafrans. But out of ignorance despite the passage of many years some people continue to send out mixed messages to observers about who the Igbo are and what their collective national goal is. For the sake of clarity it is important that we emphasis here that Igbo people are no longer Biafrans but Igbo and their goal is to establish an independent modern Igbo nation state outside Nigeria.

Frustratingly however, one can still find a pocket of ignorant individuals who in spite of this clear and unclouded known difference between Igbo and Biafran identities still use the words Igbo and Biafra as if they were interchangeable or are one and the same thing. They are not. Igbo is a nation or the national identity of the ethnic Igbo people. The land they occupy is called Igbo land, the people are known and called Igbo, the culture they practice is Igbo culture and their language is Igbo.

The Igbo are a national people that fit perfectly the current United Nations categorization and definition of who national peoples are. And it is based on that definition that they declared in their charter that any such group of people are legitimately and legally entitled to actively seek for their self-determination and can aspire to be independent of all others and exist and thrive on their own terms as a unique cultural and national group or state.

Most importantly, we need to state here that since the end of the war no one has been given any Igbo mandate to re-impose the Biafran identity on the Igbo nation; the people and their land. In 1967 the Igbo and their neighbors adopted Biafra as a collective identity on an ad hoc and temporary basis. They adopted the Biafran banner and identity to defend themselves against a common enemy. Beyond 1970 no one is authorized to continue to refer to Igbo as Biafrans or their land as Biafra land. It is important to clearly state that Igbo’s abandonment of the Biafran identity after 1970 does not mean that the Igbo at any time abandoned their quest for self-determination and independence from Nigeria. The Igbo are still seeking to restore and reestablish their sovereign and political independence under Igbo banner and identity instead of under the Biafran banner and identity.

Biafra is also a Foreign Nomenclature

One significant reason that some people who support the dissolution of the Nigerian union give is that the name Nigeria is foreign to the local people. They assert that Nigeria as a country was put together and christened Nigeria by foreigners. Yet these same people who oppose the use of Nigeria’s nomenclature are still infatuated and hooked on Biafra as the name for their proposed fantasy country. Such people overlook the fact that Biafra too is as foreign as any foreign names can be. Some of them have argued and defended the name Biafra by imputing strange and ridiculous local or Igbo meanings to the word in order to convince people that it is indigenous. Some of the people can speculate and argue as much as they like but that does not change the fact that the name Biafra has a European origin. The bight was christened so by the Portuguese pioneer explorers who were the first to visit the West African coastal waters before the other Europeans.

The first Europeans who came in contact with the coast dwellers of the Atlantic in West Africa were from Portugal in the 15th and 16th centuries. Initially the interactions between the Europeans and the natives were solely commercial. So, to aid them in their navigation and trade routes the Europeans made the map of the territory for their convenience and gave it the name Biafra that it bore except that the Nigerian government changed it to Bight of Benin after the war in their bid to spite the former Biafrans.

Justifying the Igbo Independence Project

Igbo as a people are unique and clearly identifiable with their own unique set of culture, language, a set of unified customs and norms and a specific physical geographical space. They therefore, can justifiably seek to determine themselves or who they are. They do not need to offer any other qualifications or reasons as basis for them to seek to be independent and autonomously manage their own affairs without any input or interference from any other people. But because it is true, the Igbo can still make references to the issues of unjust systemic mistreatments, marginalization, killings and other such injustices to which they are subjected in Nigeria. But those do not form the most important argument that the Igbo present for their independence. Those unjust conditions and mistreatments can change but the Igbo persona and identity does not change. So, the Igbo are campaigning for their self-determination and independence based on who they are and not based on the adverse things that are happening to them in Nigeria. The Igbo project to free themselves from Nigeria and become independent is grounded on the people’s collective wish to be free and live autonomously based on who they are. It is the people’s deliberate conscious effort that does not depend on the vagaries of fortune or the flimsy and fleeting circumstances of human whims or even the caprices of nature. The decision is immutable and continues to endure until the goal is achieved.

Easily and without doubt the singular most important argument that any group of people can present for wanting to be free and independent from others is their desire to preserve their identity and their way of life as a people. And this is what the Igbo are working to achieve. We are well aware that it may be harder to sustain for a long time when arguing for freedom merely based on temporary unjust and unfavorable conditions the people are subjected to. Such argument might be countered easily by some clever and cunny individuals who deal well in sophistry, half-truths and less than honest rhetoric. Such individuals might come up with the insincere argument that others within the same space are going through the same pain and injustice and as such the Igbo have no sufficient excuse to opt out. Additionally, if Igbo’s argument is based mainly or solely on such ephemeral issues a day might come when any astute politician could emerge in Nigeria and decide to take on those challenges and injustices that Igbo are complaining about. Such effort maybe pretentious or genuine, it doesn’t matter but it might help to weaken Igbo argument and make it harder to win the argument for Igbo separation and independence. On the contrary, the Igbo will always have a valid argument if their need for independence is always based on the idea of their desire to preserve their Igbo unique and separate identity. Fundamentally the Igbo can and do have the right to seek independence and self-determination just for the sake of it and without giving any other reason other than that they are Igbo and a part of humanity.

Igbo Nation State is not Biafra State

For those who are clamoring for a new fantastic state of Biafra on the basis that Nigeria is a foreign creation and therefore a fictitiously forced-on identity should also not overlook the fact that the same applies to Biafra. Some people argue, and rightly so that Nigeria was created for the natives, without their consent, by the British colonialists and, for this reason it is unacceptable to the people who are going through the pain of the consequences of that miscreation. Others also believe that Nigeria failed mostly because different peoples with different and conflicting cultures, languages and world views were forced to share the same Nigerian citizenship. They assert that ever from inception these incongruent ethnic and national interests have continued to clash against each other. Undoubtedly, it is true because these factors are responsible for the dysfunctional state of things in Nigeria and its ultimate failure. Yet it boggles the imagination to see some of these same people fail to understand that in the Biafra they are fighting to reestablish lies the same Nigerian failure-factors. Such individuals continue to ignore the fact that the so-called defunct Eastern Region on whose map the old Biafra was based was also the creation of the same British colonialists. If they have rejected Nigeria as they rightly should then they should also reject the old Eastern Region. It was created by the same British colonialists. What is more is that the same factors of diversities of peoples, cultures,  languages and interests that brought about Nigeria’s failure, are clearly present in the so-called old and proposed new Biafra. If Nigeria failed on the basis of the enumerated reasons what then is the guarantee that this new utopian Biafra will not fail.

An Igbo State by the Igbo and for the Igbo

There is nothing that is stopping the present generation of Igbo from founding a new modern Igbo nation (country or state) for the Igbo and by the Igbo without any foreign input. We believe that there is no excuse for this generation of Igbo to lazily choose to fashion this new country along the lines of an existing foreign concept and cartography. This generation of Igbo must reject the temptation of choosing the easy way out or traveling the path of least resistance all because they don’t want to put in some extra work and “think outside the box” of an existing foreign concept. In this new independence project all things must be made new. The Igbo must draw a fresh new map of Igbo country by Igbo and for the Igbo. They should roll up their sleeves and actually go to work to produce an authentic Igbo map that will serve this generation and many more to come.

In some quarters some presumptuous and misguided Igbo nurse the ridiculous dream of one day inventing what they refer to as a “United States of Biafra.” They believe that the Igbo will sometime in the future after independence go into a confederating alliance with the other neighboring ethnic nationalities through some kind of a memorandum of understanding. It is as clear as daylight and, no one needs any soothsayer to see that this is presumptuously reckless as it will only become a hopeless “Disunited States of Biafra,” an epitome of a house of cards. Except by name such creation will not be anything quite different from the extant Nigeria. What is amazing though is that one would have thought that after the disastrous experience of the united Nigerian nightmare that some advocates for this new Biafra would have learned some lessons. It is expected that by now a long time has passed, enough for such reckless dreamers to reflect and avoid everything with the shape and appearances of Nigeria in Igbo quest for independence.

The Igbo do not have to copy what other people have done elsewhere in order to be accepted in the comity of nations. Therefore, it’s not going to be because there is the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain so, the Igbo must create a “United States of Biafra” just to prove anything. U. K.’s lesson should be enough to warn those who harbor such impractical fantasy to desist from committing such foolish and sentimental mistakes. In case of Britain, after 300 years of being together the union is crumbling, as everyone can see. The various components of the realm are opting out. Igbo therefore at this point must not fall into a similar mistake. In their effort to found a new modern Igbo state they can take a lesson from the British experience and choose to get it right from the beginning. Every Igbo everywhere can and must choose to reject the fictitious Biafran identity in favor of their Igbo identity.

Sentiments and Compromises do not build great and lasting structures

There is no any successful and progressive state that is founded and built up on sentiments. A successful Igbo state is only that which is founded and built on Igbo ideas, cultural values and worldviews and not that which is sustained by borrowed or compromised ideas and cultural values. Igbo’s collective goal at this point should be to found a functional and successful society rather than trying too hard to appear “woke” and look pretty as a fanciful “multicultural” borderless and dysfunctional society.

In the many years of my search I am yet to come across any convincing argument on how the Igbo persona will diminish if they choose to found and run an exclusive Igbo-only country. Of course such Igbo-ideology or Igbo-worldview-based country will not in any way be closed to other people who are willing to come and get assimilated and become Igbo citizens through a standard formal procedure. In the meanwhile some of us have wondered without end what it is that drives some Igbo to sometimes readily and willingly jettison their Igboness or at best compromise and dilute it at the drop of a hat. The question is; what is there for anyone to be ashamed of in a unique Igbo identity. Why should anyone have to compromise their Igboness in order to prove to others that the Igbo are also a part of this universe and should rightfully hold their own uniqueness in it. At this point, the importance of self-acceptance and pride in who the Igbo are cannot be over emphasized. There can never come a time when it will become a virtue to debase oneself in order to prove to the other people any point.

It will be an unforgivable collective amnesia if Igbo people can find it easy to forget the fact which is still very fresh in the people’s mind how self-hurting compromises contributed so much in causing the failure of Azikiwe’s Nigeria. Someone had once said that compromises make for good umbrellas but not good as roofs. In the light of this discussion, nothing can be truer. The Igbo should learn to always think in long terms when Igbo national interests are the concern. An Igbo should always ask how will the decision I make or the thing that I do affect Igbo individuals or Igbo collective in the next twenty or fifty years.

Attaching Igbo’s destiny to those of others will always spell disaster. The Igbo must learn how to believe in themselves and find peace in themselves, enough to always rely in their collective inner strength. When entering into any alliance either as individuals or as Igbo collective all Igbo persons must always consider what will be the effects of those agreements in the lives of the living and unborn generations of Igbo. No Igbo should ever decide or act in a way that will knowingly hurt Igbo interests or individuals. Every Igbo is his brother’s keeper, onye ahana nwanne ya. The Igbo do not have to sell themselves cheap, throw away their identity and tell the others that there is nothing else to the Igbo. No, there is. There is “this” Igbo uniqueness. This Igbo uniqueness is not in any way better than those of others. But it is theirs; and all Igbo must endeavor to cherish and guard this Igboness from dishonor either from within or from without.

Some of us may have come across those who argue for a compromised Igbo state on the premise that the Igbo and some of their neighboring ethnic nationalities are closely connected because they have lived in close proximity for so long and for that reason they have a few things in common. They talk about intermarriages and even in some cases they cite instances of common ancestral connections. That point of course is an emotional argument suffused with sentiments. Remember we had argued earlier that sentiments are not sufficient when the goal is to accomplish any meaningful thing in real life social engineering. In real life situations, no matter how closely related we are, a time will come when for the sake of adventure and expansion of human horizon, all responsible parents must cut loose the tie and free their lovely children to go their separate ways. It is nothing different from the birthing process of a child. No mother leaves the umbilical cord attached to the child after birthing in order to prove that the child was born by them. Unfortunately this appears to be what the purveyors of the neighbor-connectedness argument are trying to do. They pretend to forget that even children who were born by the same parents eventually move away to found their unique, independent and separate family staid (obi.) And once these separations and independence begin to take place, it is only a matter of time that all the traces of close consanguinity begin to fade away and prove harder to establish. Yet, and very fortunately so, no matter how faded this relatedness becomes there will never come a time when that inter connectedness of all humanity will be lost entirely. The true story of our collective humanity has always shown that no matter how long or how far apart we drift from each other that unbreakable brotherly link that connects humans in one big family of our common humanity and brotherhood will still endure. Yet, in spite of this human connectedness and, for the sake of variety and the constant need to continually open up new frontiers for humanity, we cannot stop this inevitable human separating experience.

Posted on

Former MK and Minister Arrested for Spying for Iran

The Israel Security Agency and the Israel Police, last month (May 2018), arrested former minister and MK Gonen Segev on suspicion of having aided the enemy in wartime and spied against the State of Israel.

Following the investigation, the State Attorney (Jerusalem District), on 15 June 2018, filed a criminal indictment against Segev in Jerusalem District Court for the aforesaid offenses and for numerous charges regarding passing information to the enemy. The indictment was approved by Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and State Attorney Shai Nitzan.

Segev, who has lived in Nigeria in recent years, went to Equatorial Guinea in May 2018. He was transferred to Israel at the request of the Israel Police after Equatorial Guinea refused him entry due to his criminal record.



Upon arriving in Israel, Segev was detained for investigation by the ISA and the Israel Police pursuant to information which indicated that Segev was in contact with elements in Iranian intelligence and was assisting them vis-à-vis their activity against the State of Israel.

During his subsequent investigation, it was learned that Segev had been recruited – and was active – as an agent for Iranian intelligence. It was also learned that contact had been made in 2012 between Segev and elements from the Iranian Embassy in Nigeria, and that Segev had subsequently twice visited Iran to meet with his handlers in full knowledge that they were Iranian intelligence operatives.

Segev also met with his Iranian handlers in various hotels and apartments around the world which he assumed were used for covert activity. Segev even received secret communications equipment for encoding messages between him and his handlers.

Segev transferred to his handlers information on – inter alia – the energy economy, security sites in Israel, and diplomatic and security personnel and buildings.

In order to perform the missions that he had been assigned by his handlers, Segev maintained contacts with Israeli citizens in the foreign affairs and security fields. Segev worked to put some of these Israeli citizens in contact with Iranian intelligence agents by misleading the former and presenting the latter as innocent Iranian businessmen.

At the request of the ISA and the Israel Police, the court agreed to allow publication of the foregoing. All other details regarding the case are subject to a gag order.

Posted on

Biafra Freedom and the Quest for Igbo Independence

Since the last nineteen years there has been a revival of the quest for the reestablishment of the defunct Republic of Biafra. Between 1967 and 1970 Biafra existed as an independent state apart from Nigeria. The boundaries of the new country were based on the colonially created former Eastern Region of Nigeria. Igbo national people were the dominant ethnic group in the region. But there were many other non-Igbo ethnic or national peoples in the new country. Because of the circumstances that necessitated the independence declaration of the country it was natural for this Biafra of 1967 to include the dominant Igbo nationals and others who are Igbo neighbors living in the contiguous surrounding lands.

Just like they did in the dysfunctional greater Nigerian country, the European colonialists who created the former Eastern Region had insensitively mixed up all the different national ethnic groups in the region for their governing convenience. Because this hotchpotch arrangement helped to minimize the running cost of the colonial outposts by cutting down on the number of staff and other incidentals it made a sound commercial sense for the non-indigenous Europeans. So, the Europeans maximized profit from their colonial venture while the indigenous peoples suffered from avoidable endemic interethnic internecine conflicts that would frustrate and stunt any form of progress.

As soon as the colonial Europeans left when they granted independence to the natives, the hitherto simmering dormant crisis busted out into uncontrollable flames. Up till now, as I write this piece, since the departure of the Europeans, interethnic and interreligious killings have constantly erupted among the native peoples who were forced by the exigencies of colonialism to exist as citizens of the same country. This is what led to the declaration of Biafran independence from Nigeria in 1967. Islamic dominated Nigeria had embarked on the mission to wipe out the Christian dominant Igbo people from the Earth. Igbo people resisted the genocidal move by declaring an independent state of Biafra from Nigeria.



This is 2018 more than half a century after, the various peoples are still engulfed in an unnecessary progress-arresting and human-lives destroying crisis because the lazy inheritors of this unviable European creation have continued to avoid facing the realities of their so-called Nigerian country. The only sensible solution to the seemingly unending Nigerian crisis is to divide the country along the existing ethnic and religious divides.

However as we stated earlier, there has been a renewed interest in carving out of Nigeria a new independent Biafra. With the new agitation came the controversy surrounding the authentic identities, territorial boundaries and social and political structures of this new quest. As all will agree, both those involved in the struggle to free Biafra from Nigeria and those watching the developments from any angle, there is no way the Biafra of 2018 will look anything like the Biafra of 1967. Nothing in this world remains static and time, it is said changes everything. Fifty years have passed since 1967 and the truth is that the conditions and circumstances that produced the first Biafra and this new Biafra are not the same.

Therefore the human identities, national boundaries and political and social structures of this new Biafra cannot be the same as those of 1967. Every new generation must fight their own wars and win or lose their own battles on their own terms. Agitating for a new Biafra based on the 1967 identities, boundaries and structures will amount to an intellectual laziness on the part of the agitators and spell the doom of the proposed new country. A new Biafra as agitated for by the Igbo does not and cannot include any non-Igbo ethnic nationals. This position cannot be overemphasized because going against it will be nothing different from the extant Nigerian disaster – the mixing of different incongruent peoples in a country that cannot work. That mistake was made by foreign powers and we rightly blame them for it. But we cannot afford to make the same mistake in the new Biafra. Doing so will be like creating a new Nigeria by another name, Biafra. The same crises that have bedeviled the present Nigeria will also dog such Biafra and destroy it.

Such a disaster can easily be avoided by creating a brand new country by Africans and for Africans based on their own native experiences and anticipations. It will be a country for the first time created by Africans and for their people on their own terms. When this is done, if the new country fails or succeeds, it will be the shame or pride of the creators – Igbo people. There will be none else to blame but the indigenous people themselves. There will not be any foreign input by sheepishly following the moribund foreign concept boundaries of the former Eastern Region of Nigeria. The absurdity of adopting the map of the old Eastern Region as the boundaries of the new Biafra is the fact that almost half of Igbo population and land on the west bank of the Niger were not included in the 1967 Biafra. There are also several Igbo populations and lands that extend beyond what many people today know as traditional Igbo land. No Igbo anywhere should or will be left behind in this new quest to reestablish an independent Igbo state.

These truths and facts serve as fundamentals that need to be clearly defined for all who care to join this Igbo liberation business so that from the onset they will have a clear picture of what they are getting into, what they should and what they should not do. With that said it does not mean that in the process of doing that that we should produce a document that is perfect and immutable. We should aim for a living document that is dynamic and in tandem with the times, events and current circumstances. Since events, circumstances and experiences seem to change very rapidly these days we can keep up by constantly reviewing and updating the contents of the working document to always reflect in real time the prevailing realities which we encounter along the way.




At this moment all those who are involved in this business need to recognize that we are at the cusp of bringing into being a brand new society, country or nation. As such we seem to have been involuntarily positioned by providence to play a special role in the history of Igbo people. We can voluntarily choose to reenact the convoluted grandiose “Zik of Africa” pipe dream by pursuing to build another clay-footed giant in the new Biafra of 2018 and jumble up a mixed bag of incongruent peoples in the name of inclusiveness. If we did this we would have fallen into the same sin we accuse Lugard, Zik and others of. Or we can choose to unashamedly reinvent our ancestral Igbo nation and proudly turn it into a viable, progressive, peaceful, prosperous and manageable modern country that is successful and serve as an inspiration to the rest of the world. Such a modern and ideal Igbo country will attract other people from around the world who would come and proudly take up citizenship in this Igbo country and will be self-propelled to honestly pay patriotic allegiance to their newly adopted country and Igboness.

It will be foolhardy of us who have the luxury of time (relative to the 1967 Biafrans) as it is, to carelessly, even naively adopt the same unworkable one-Nigerian pattern to which we are all witnesses of as a woeful epitome of a futile doomed enterprise.

At this stage (maybe at no time at all) we cannot afford to have anything to be written in stone – unchangeable and final. In the popular saying it is said that only God and fools do not change their minds. 1967 Biafra was the concept and dream of our fathers but the 2018 Biafra must be the concept and dream of the present generation of Igbo people. I personally was a firm believer in one-Biafra that would be made up of both Igbo and their neighbors (an all-inclusive Biafra.) In my simplistic thinking I believed that the so-called south-south or Niger Delta political zone should naturally be a part of the new Biafra because 1967 boundaries included those places. I wrote passionately in favor of such political arrangement in the new Biafra we are founding. I had even used such fanciful phrases like “United States of Biafra” to describe the envisaged new creation of another one-Nigeria only with a different name “Biafra.” But such phrases are thoughtless and full of “beautiful nonsense” as my friend Festus Afamefule would put it. In the last few years after some time of impassioned personal interrogation and honest empirical contemplation I concluded that in the interest of the future generations of our people that we cannot afford to construct a new country for our people whose foundation and modus vivendi is not firmly anchored in our Igboness (in who we are.) For a society to work, the people are expected to have common historical experiences, common cultural practices, common linguistic history and some other things that help to hold a people together. The saying in Igbo is that na izu ka nma na nne ji.  

Some people have come up with the question about what happens to the rest peoples some of whom also fought and died in the effort to free the first Biafra from Nigeria. Such people will need to be reminded that these other nations of indigenous peoples are capable of forming their own independent countries without Igbo as a part in their destiny. The populations of most of these ethnic nations run in several millions with so much natural and human resources that can easily sustain and make them successful. It will be stupid for any Igbo to think that they have been placed in the position of the “redemptive saviors” over these peoples who have their own innate redeemers. Everyone or ethnic people that fought under the banner and name of Biafra in 1967 and onwards are also equally entitled to adopt the name as their redemptive symbol of resistance, freedom and independence. Today that is what that name has come to represent for all peoples and persons – a universal symbol of resistance against genocide, injustice, oppression, persecution and domination. Any people or person anywhere in the world can adopt that name as their symbolic avatar in their quest for redemption, liberation, freedom and independence from anything, person or institution.

Perhaps the reason why this confusion has festered is that this movement for a new Biafra has remained like a moving train which stops to pick up all willing passengers without discrimination. Of course there should be no discrimination against all those who want to get in but the danger we have faced is that most of those who are joining the train (the Biafran train) come with so many wild, dangerous and hideous (sometimes fraudulent) notions. All come with preconceived parochial opinions on what Biafra is or what it should be. And all claim to be the final authorities in the subject. But unfortunately many of these individualized ideas about Biafra are flawed. Yet this has not stopped these misled individuals from holding very tight to their version of personalized wishful and impractical opinionated Biafranism. Having observed this dangerous trend it has become necessary that the Igbo must get together to reinvent and refocus their own standardized unique and workable Biafranism and anticipated Biafran or Igbo country. It doesn’t matter, when independence is won the new state can stick with Biafra or change its name. The other emerging new countries can also adopt the Biafran name or something else as it suits them. More than one country can go by Biafra just like Sudan and South Sudan.

 In the end a more sensible and ideal new Biafra or Igbo state should be aimed toward success. It should be one that while being careful to preserve all the great conservative aspects of Igbo cultural heritage and traditions, is also dynamic – readily embracing change and willingly directing the society to seamlessly transit into newly discovered lights with little or no frictions. If this generation followed their hearts and are willing to do the right things, this new society can work if it is founded on a non-sentimental and well-considered uncompromised realism.

 On the contrary if we want to follow the fad and adopt the “pretty boy” posture of the current wave of indiscriminate and unrealistic world dream then we will be headed for trouble. Sadly, it is this prevailing unregulated sentimental liberal ideology that has created the greatest danger that is facing our world today. It is the indiscriminate senseless implementation of this innocent-sounding idea that is threatening to revert all the progress, prosperity and freedoms which the world has thus far enjoyed to the level of the dark ages. This sentimental liberalism if left unchecked will send the world to the darkest abyss, the type that it has never seen before.

To prove the danger inherent in this psychedelic self-defeating indiscriminate all-inclusiveness; apart from the perfect example of the one-Nigerian disaster, the reader can take one hard look at Europe in its current compromised state. With the trend and rate at which Europe is traveling along this uncensored inclusiveness, Europe will be doomed. The only hope that is still open to Europe is that the current generation of Europeans must stand their ground and push back the coming darkness of Islamism. Otherwise, if nothing is done to stave off this wave of absolute evil, in the next few years Europe as we know it will be completely engulfed in a total hopeless darkness of the worst kind.

Posted on

HEBREW WARRIOR General Joseph Achuzie of Biafra Dies at 89

The struggle for an Igbo led free Biafra was led in its early days by many dedicated leaders. One of these leaders the Biafran hero General Joseph Achuzie  has passed to the next world at the age of 89.

He was a courageous and fearless defender of justice and the persecuted. Achuzie was a hero who stood along with his fellow patriots to defend our people and homeland when the Nigerian government in collaboration with the British government dedicated themselves to the total annihilation of the Igbo and the other ethnic nationalities of Biafra, which led to the unconscionable annexation of our home land.

At that most critical moment in our history men and women like Achuzie rallied together and by sheer courage and bravery they fought back and prevented a preconceived total and systemic genocide of our people. A genocide aimed at wiping out the Israelite presence in West Africa. Of all those people who fought to stop the most outrageous and unspeakable evil committed against a people since history on the African continent General Achuzie stood out.

Biafrans of this generation and subsequent ones owe our survival to the courage and sacrifices of such men and women like Achuzie. If an independent Hebrew State of Biafra led by the Igbo people has any hope of transpiring it will need peope like Achuzie her were selfess and courageous and believed in the divine destiny of the Igbo people and their Israelite heritage stemming from the tribe of Gad.

Naa n’udo General, our hero, rest on in the noble company of our reposed ancestors.

Posted on

LOST TRIBES: Islamists in Nigeria Continue to Oppress Igbo Israelites

The growing movement of the Igbo tribe’s return to its Israelite heritage is nothing short of miraculous.  What started out as a small percentage of Igbo interested in returning to the pratices of their ancestors as they were before the slave trade was brought to the Gold Coast of Africa is now a wide spread movement.  This of course is part of the larger Lost Tribes movement we are witnessing around the world.

The Igbo in particular, as well as many of the smaller tribes nearby have been hunted and oppressed by Western backed Islamists from the Northern Hausa tribe in control of Nigeria.  The Igbo, considered dilligent businessmen with one of the richest African diaspora communities, are held back from controlling the lucrative oil trade that originates in their area.  Instead the Hausa backed by oil companies have for years been sucking the Igbo oil wealth from their region and forced the region into direct poverty.

The question is: why?

When the British came to what is today Nigeria or more specific the Biafra region, actually known as Igboland, they noticed a bizarre sight.  The Igbo were keeping the Sabbath on the same day as the Jews.  The Igbo also held strongly to many other Israelite practices.  The British, as they did in so many other places went ahead and forcibly stamped this out.  The pratice that was done in Iraq, India, Afghanistan, and other British colonies was to place non-indigenous peoples over the indigenous owners of the lands they conquered.  In many places it is surfacing that these tribes are actually connected to the Lost Tribes of Israel.

The Igbo are said to be related to the tribe of Gad as well as a mixture of other tribes.  Their tradition leads them to practice Shabbat, Kashrut, family purity, and more. The ongoing oppression of the Igbo is a microcosm, of the wider war that the Judeo-Israelite world is fighting against the global left and the Islamists it is using as footsoldiers to try stopping the ultimate return of G-D’s children in all its myriad colors from the far reaches of the world.

BUY TODAY: The Igbos and Israel: An Inter-cultural Study of the Oldest and Largest Jewish Diaspora

The Buhari administration in Nigeria is a British backed and Islamist infused mini-caliphate which has kept down one of the most obvious of the Lost Tribes and has sucked out their wealth and spread an extreme form of Islamic adherence to what should be a propsperous and free country.

I personally have always struggled with the truth of the coming home of many of our brothers and sisters from the four corners of the world.  It is apparent to me that it will not occur in way that the first stage has occured.  There is a great awakening happening across the world that is spreading a tremendous light.  The Igbo are part of this, but due to corporate and Islamic meddling they have been prevented from realizing their desires to practice freely and build up Israelite institutions where they have live for 2000 years.

The coming war is a war of truth versus the spreading of Islamo-Facist ideology.  The return of the Lost Tribes from around the world can start with the Igbo if we realize that the best way to fight the coming war is simply by fulfilling the biblical prophecy as it is simply stated. Of course we must make sure this return is on the ne hand as smooth as possible and yet meets the standards that the People of Israel have kept to for the last 2000 years.

Posted on

From Kurdistan to South Sudan: Israel’s Covert Operations Push Independence

It is no secret that Israel’s foreign policy has shifted in the last decade to aiding developing countries and regions that share a concurrent enemy in regards to radical Islam.  Most of the time Israel extends its hands in the form of technology and aid, but two nascent states have received far more.

Kurdistan, A Silent Partner Against Radical Islam

Kurdistan has been an independence project long in the making.  Nestled in Northern Iraq, Syria, Southeastern Turkey, and Western Iran, the Kurds are largest indigenous people without a state. Israelis covert cooperation has been primarily focused on ties to the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq (KRG). The ties in the past included weapons training, arms, and other intelligence support.  It cannot be confirmed whether or not there is still a military aspect to the relationship, but it is said Israel enjoys Kurdish oil and helps it transfer the oil to Europe and beyond.  Most analysts believe Israel has been instrumental in helping the Kurds build the Peshmerga into a serious fighting force in which their future independence relies.

An independent Kurdistan plays well in the Israeli strategy of working with non-radical indigenous actors that will in the future work overtly with the Jewish state when the geopolitical arena warms to Israel’s existence.

South Sudan, Forward Ally Against Iran in Africa

The history between South Sudan and Israel goes back to the late 1960’s, long before talk of South Sudan had entered the minds of the global power brokers. Representatives of the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army made contact with Israel in hopes of striking a partnership.  Over the years, Israel has given more than just aid, it has trained and delivered arms to those fighting for South Sudan’s independence. It has been so apparent to all observers the role Israel played in prying South Sudan from the jaws of the Northern Radical Islamist regime in Sudan that the South Sudan president Salva Kiir said the following in his visit to Israel in August 2011:

“Without you, we would not have arisen. You struggled alongside us in order to allow the establishment of South Sudan and we are interested in learning from your experience.”

South Sudan’s independence is a roll back on Iran and its proxies’ drive South into the Sub Sahara.  It also proves how long term relationships in Africa that are built on economy and security can be very effective in the face of radical threats.

Is Biafra Next?

Following a similar pattern and necessity in terms of Israel’s geopolitical needs, Biafra is a strong candidate to secure covert aid.  Nigeria was supposed to be Israel’s new Africa ally, but the ascendancy of Islamist Buhari to the Presidency has forced Israel’s government to rethink its strategy.  This is why Biafra, if positioned correctly, could play a vital role in securing the Jewish state’s first long term ally on the Gold Coast.  There is just one challenge, Biafra is no South Sudan.  Last time it tried for independence 3 million innocent Biafrans lost their lives.  Israel will have to weigh whether or not it can be successful in helping Biafra secure freedom.  If so it may be the first time the Jewish state would be able to legitimately plant its flag in West Africa as a partner with the continent’s first Hebraic Nation.

 

Posted on

Igbo Position on Nigerian Restructuring

The need to restructure the Nigerian state has gained a populist currency in the past few years. Especially, since the beginning of this year, 2017 it has become a consensus call coming from almost all the ethnic, political and geographical sections that make up the corporate Nigerian state. Recently the champions of this call for a new and different Nigeria have gained an overwhelming numerical strength. Therefore their voices are increasingly getting stronger, louder and urgent. The fear and seemingly mysterious fog that earlier surrounded this now deafening call for change and the enthronement of a new order seems to have suddenly cleared up. And now with a clearer picture the argument to restructure Nigeria becomes more compelling and can simply not be ignored or wished away any longer by those who traditionally oppose it.

As the days go by the rank of those in opposition of a restructured Nigeria continues to decline and pale in the face of so many incontestable and overpowering evidences in support. It has now become clear that the current Nigerian state does not and cannot work as it is presently structured. Therefore, the majority of the country’s stakeholders have finally accepted that the existing Nigerian state structure is not viable and cannot be sustained any much longer. Many genuine patriotic Nigerians are seeking for real solutions and a considerable majority tends to believe that what is needed is a Nigerian country that works on a structure where the diverse ethnical, political, religious and social units are forming a confederating union.

Nigeria currently exists on a structure that is centrally controlled or administered – a federal government. It has been like this since the military intervention in the government of the country in January, 1966. In order to effectively control the political turmoil and mayhem taking place in the Western Region of the country and forestall the unconscionable corruptive and overarching manipulations of the federal power by the politicians who wielded its reigns, the army which took power through a military coup d’état adopted the federal government structure effective immediately. During the past 50 years, practical experiences and ensuing events have shown clearly that this centralized control of natural resources and political power is not working for the country: Hence the need for something new, something different.

That something new is the now much talked about restructured Nigeria. An important highlight of this now popular and highly recommended restructuring is the fact that the advocates want much of the powers for the day to day running of the grassroots components of Nigeria to be vested in the local governments of the different contiguous regions. Restructure advocates want the federal government to be stripped of the control of much of the powers which it hitherto has. Some of those powers which are presently exclusively and entirely reposed on the federal government are natural resources control, education, law enforcement, etc. The advocates of restructure contend that they want especially the control of natural resources, law enforcement and education to be decentralized and devolved to the regional centers. Most importantly, the advocates argue that this envisaged new arrangement will enable the different regional power centers to develop and grow each at their own pace, without unduly interfering with or holding up their neighbors. It is expected that with this new arrangement the central government can exclusively control the collective national military, external affairs, some aspects of the judiciary and other matters as are determined to represent a federal Nigerian image and interests.

Basically, what most of the advocates of restructure have in mind is that they still want to preserve Nigeria as a unit – one Nigeria must exist no matter what. Perhaps, they are convinced that because the different incongruous ethnical, cultural and religious groups of peoples within the fictitious geographical enclave have stayed together long enough and successfully established amongst themselves some inseparable familial bonds. As a result, the love of country and fellow citizens has become deeply ingrained in the peoples. In their mind; by some magic the forced Nigerian marriage has finally turned into love and bliss affair and, no one should put asunder the sacred bond of one Nigeria which was joined together by foreigners – the officiating colonial British priests.

It is not difficult to see that the advocates for this new structure believe fervently that the fire of Nigeria’s national brotherly love now burns so wonderfully bright. That the peoples of this dreamed of nirvana new one Nigeria can actually build a communal fire in a faraway imaginary center and still get warmed up in their various separate semi-autonomous regions so long as they all go by the name “Nigeria.” These Nigerian patriots like some sinister manipulative spouse abusers are trying hard to impress on the different ethnical, religious and cultural Nigerian partners that they will be nothing and cannot exist without attaching themselves to the “one Nigerian” fiction. In this way the manipulating restructure advocates believe they have sufficiently convinced the irreconcilable peoples and that they now believe that they cannot exist on their own if they did not append themselves to the one Nigerian elixir.

The ethnic Igbo people of eastern Nigeria are a part of this present Nigerian union. When the time comes, Igbo people are also expected to form a part of this proposed restructured one Nigeria. But for some obvious and fundamental reasons the Igbo cannot possibly be a part of this planned new Nigeria, no matter how attractive. On the 29th of May 1966 the Igbo renounced forever their Nigerian citizenship. On that date Nigeria as a state and its other citizens began to ethnically cleanse Nigeria of its Igbo inhabitants. Subsequently, the outrageous hate induced Nigerian mass murder and expulsion of the Igbo from the country was advanced further. After the Igbo had been successfully expelled from Nigeria, the Nigerian state and all its citizens embarked on a premeditated genocidal war campaign against the escaped Igbo nation. Nigeria’s declared intention at the outset of the war was to wipe out the Igbo as a people from the Earth. Nigeria actively pursued that goal by mustering a viscous merciless host of men and machines and attacked the Igbo in their ancestral homeland where they ran to take refuge. Consequently, a quarter of Igbo population was murdered by the Nigerian state. Of the 3.5 million easterners or former Biafrans murdered by Nigeria, 3.1 of them were Igbo people.

Fifty years since this grievous atrocity, the Nigerian state and all its other citizens have consistently refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing. Instead Nigeria and Nigerians have remorselessly maintained that the heinous genocide of the Igbo should not be counted as crime. Thus emboldened, since the past fifty years Nigeria has pursued systematic state policies that are geared toward the persecution, the marginalization and exclusion of the ethnic Igbo from the Nigerian social, political and economic affairs. The ultimate aim of everything of course is to finally exterminate the Igbo. Truly, the unrepentant Nigerian program of the genocide of the Igbo remains an enduring project.

For these and other reasons, the Igbo have resolved that they will not have any part in the proposed restructured new country of Nigeria. The Igbo have unambiguously stated that they are not interested in going into any union with any other national group in Nigeria. Therefore, while the Igbo wish Nigeria and Nigerians well in their quest to finding a workable solution to their national problem, the Igbo have unequivocally opted for a separate Igbo identity and the separation of their territory from the Nigerian state.

Posted on

South Sudan’s Independence and the Irony of Defeat in Victory

For more than 25 years the people of South Sudan fought their powerful common enemy to a standstill. The enslaving Arab Islamist forces of north Sudan were matched fire for fire until the northerners acknowledged that the southerners who are Animists and Christians have rights to live free and on their own cultural and religious terms. The southerners fought valiantly as men, they fought as one people; they fought long and won their freedom from the oppressors on July 9, 2011.
 
Vicariously, those of us who are fighting to free Biafra from the vicious grip of the Islamic state of Nigeria participated in the South Sudanese victory like it was our own. Yes, in more ways than not, the Sudanese victory tends to foretell how the eventual Igbo freedom from Nigeria will look like. Why the Biafrans saw in the South Sudanese victory their own is because in Nigeria Igbo people are also faced with the same Arab-Islamist forces of Hausa, Fulani and Yoruba oligarchies which are bent on the total extermination of the Igbo. So, since the South Sudanese withstood similar enslaving forces and defeated them, the victory has remained an evergreen source of inspiration for the Igbo in Nigeria.  
 
While they fought in the trenches, on the hills and in all the many battlefields; the South Sudanese leaders had some squabbles and disagreements. But they always found ways to settle their differences and disputes and sustained the fight against the enslavers. At the end of the battle they won a country but now this is 2016, they need to win a nation.
 
Unfortunately, by 2013 the people lost their hard won country to personal interests and power flexing of their leaders. The leaders’ individual interests and show of power plunged the entire country into a civil war which has raged on to their shame and the disappointment of their admirers. These leaders need to put aside for one moment their pursuit for personal prestige and show some example of caring and benevolent leadership styles. Urgently, they must find solutions now; find ways to end childish things and begin the onerous and matured business of governing and managing a country and the welfares of its people.
 
Earlier on, at the southern tip of the continent, South Africans who had also fought long and arduous against those who oppressed them through Apartheid system, celebrated their freedom in 1994. Some of the leaders of the fight were imprisoned for more than 25 years. But their fight for equality had lasted for about a century. In the end the South Africans also won freedom and the right to be equal participants in the affairs of their country. But perhaps that is where the similarities of the two fights end. Today, and unfortunately so, the leaders of South Sudan are turning their laudable and prideful victory into a tragedy and nightmare. The attitude of the South Sudanese leaders toward leadership and power is largely to be blamed.
 
In South Africa there were Nelson Mandela and others like him who to a greater extent understood the nature and concept of victory and power – altruistic, magnanimous, camaraderie; transient and flitting. While in South Sudan there are Salva Kiir, Riek Machar and others who believe that victory is personal, individualistic and an end in itself. And that power should be held onto permanently and used vindictively to witch-hunt opposition while the opposition egoistically asserts that it is not weak, after all. That it also has influence. But the truth is that good leaders, whether in opposition or not cannot be vindictive and sour or constantly trying to prove some points.
 
The big guys of South Sudan are shamelessly flexing unattractive and unimpressive muscles, trying to prove personal superiority while their lowly citizens to whom the victory and power truly belong continue to suffer in pain and devastating impoverishment. In the mind of these leaders, they have come to erroneously think that because they were opportune to be present at the moment of the people’s victory therefore they have become some divine beings who are now infallible and indispensable. This attitude shamefully violates the memory and honor of those heroes who also fought and died before July 9, 2011. Sometimes one wonders if these leaders have ever considered that old saying of leaving the stage while the ovation is still loud.
 
Down through time, history has not lacked noble and honorable achievers and victors who left exemplary records which those that care can imitate. In the following story we learn that sometimes, because of the feelings of others that good leaders learn to let go of personal pleasures and comfort, even when they can afford them. In other words, true leaders cannot always take it just because they can. The biblical David was a military commander of ancient Israeli army who is still recognized as a successful leader of his people because he understood how to handle victory and power without being sucked into the twilight zone of those two impostors. It is reported that at one point during the heat of a battle, when an enemy force occupied Bethlehem his hometown, David thirsted for water from a well in Bethlehem. When he made his wish known, three of his officers volunteered and risked everything by cutting through the ranks of the enemy to fetch the water from the well. On their return, David would not drink the water but poured it out as libation, saying that there was no way he could drink it because the water equated with the blood of these men who risked their lives in order to satisfy his personal fancies.
 
As the leader, nothing prevented David from drinking the water but he resisted greed and insensitivity and instead poured the water away. We can play the story forward and contrast it with the attitude of the present South Sudan generals who it seems would rather impoverish and drink the blood of their fellow country men, women and children merely to hold on to power and prove how right and indispensable they have become.
lev-haolam-building-israel

The Monster is in us

 
My poet friend Jonathan Wilson said that as a little boy he looked for the monster under his bed. But now as an adult he suddenly discovered that the monster was himself. These South Sudanese generals fought so gallantly to win their many battles only to be defeated by mere selfish pursuit of personal glory and the unwillingness to let go and concede personal fancies in the interest of peace in the country for which they have already sacrificed so much. The present arch rivals President Salva Kiir and his former Vice-President Riek Machar fought side by side in the military until the enemy was defeated and the people of South Sudan became free and independent. Now, they are finding it impossible to defeat the enemy in their individual selves. Good leaders aim to leave behind legacies which acceptably, are more difficult to do than winning battles. In trying to win wars the aim is to defeat the enemy, while in building legacies true leaders must defeat their selves. At first it was believed that the problem of the South Sudanese people was the hegemony and evil devises of the Islamic Arabs in the north. Sadly, due to the selfish interests of their leaders, the people seem to be doing a rethink.
 
To many observers, that victory over the bigoted fanatical forces of Islamic Arab feudalism will not be complete until the leaders are able to defeat their personal demon. But they still have the time and opportunity to save themselves, the country and the people in it. These leaders must come to the realization that power as everything else is only a means and not an end in itself. All powers and attained positions are transient and temporal and should be treated as such.
 
Nevertheless, we are not pretending to believe that sentiments and emotions may be all there are in making these men to do the right thing. Sometimes there may be need for something extra. So, while we are appealing to the conscience of these men, to reconsider and solve this problem in the same way they had solved other disagreements they had when they fought for their liberation, we are not ruling out the need for genuine external assistance in helping solve this problem. The international community should find a way to use sanctions and other forms of economic and political pressures to force these men to do the right thing.
 
Part of what I consider to be the right approach in solving the problem is to avoid an obtuse and blanket kind of condemnations and approvals. Let the guilty be blamed and those who out of a sincere and honest heart have done the right thing should be praised and encouraged. It will be more beneficial, especially in the interest of posterity for those who do intervene in this matter to be specific when dealing with all aspects of the issue. There is the need for a comprehensive and holistic approach in trying to solve South Sudan. As an example, in my opinion, I think that the time has come for the review of the country’s political and social structure. The prevailing National Constitution was drawn under the circumstances of strife and war with an external force. As a matter of necessity, since the country as an independent state is now under a civilian regime, it may be a good idea to produce another constitution which takes cognizance of present realities.
[huge_it_share]