If all else fails, do a referendum

THE qualitative change between 1966 and 2017 in the discourse of the primary antagonists – the coalition of 16 Arewa (Northern) youth organizations on the one side and the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) on the other — on the quit notice given the Igbo people living in the Northern half of the country is quite remarkable and, indeed, positive. It indicates the country has grown to value enlightened discourse.
It indicates that both sides are aware of the uses of the rule of law and, above all, they are inclined to respect it. It also shows there is some unanimity about process, about the most legitimate path to a resolution of the conflict, indeed, some areas of common understanding. These would have been unbelievable sometime ago, but there it is, and it is being ignored as if it were nothing. The two sides, however, do not agree at all on other things.
The first and perhaps the most crucial is the stated decision of both sides to renounce violence as a means to the resolution of their differences. In a statement signed on behalf of the youths by Abdulazeez Suleiman, the coalition of Arewa youths said it never called for violence or war against the Igbos. “Some elements have for reasons best known to them, mischievously distorted the intent of our original script by alluding such words as ‘violence,’ ‘threat,’ ‘war,’ and ‘mass action,’ to it. “We find this mischievous because as cultured thorough bred Northerners, we have never anywhere and at any time, called anybody to violence as a means of conflict resolution.”
“In strict observance of that tradition, we never employ violence as a means of pursuing our interest and at every opportunity; we opt for peaceful engagements and implore people to eschew violence in all its ramifications.”
Alhaji Yerima Shettima, the National President of the Arewa Youth Consultative Forum (AYCF) reinforced this peaceful orientation of the northern coalition: “We don’t want Biafra struggle to breed violence or civil war. We want peaceful solution to the issue. That’s the simple and summary of our position. But many took our position on the matter out of context to mean that we were planning to sack or eject Igbos from the North. That’s not the truth. There is nowhere in the (Kaduna) declaration that says we are forcefully going to remove the Igbo from the North. .Our position is that since Igbo led by IPOB say they want to secede from Nigeria, let them be allowed to go without any violence. I believe in self-determination and so, see no reason the Igbo should be stopped from pursuing that dream…”
The IPOB on its part has maintained a Ghandian non-violence posture, in its many protests for more than two years, there has not been a record of violence. On the contrary, IPOB members have been the victims of violence perpetrated by the military and the police against the group, some of which had been investigated by the Amnesty International and found to be totally unjustified, given the peaceable nature of IPOB’s protests.
The two groups agree on the need for a referendum if nothing better prevails. Since the quit notice issued by the Arewa youths coalition, efforts at reconciliation, to calm down the rhetoric and reduce tension have gone on as pressures are mounting on IPOB and the Arewa coalition. In a letter to the Acting President, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, the Arewa coalition stated its position that the government should facilitate the referendum to enable Igbos express their true intentions by: “Taking steps to facilitate the actualization of the Biafran nation in line with the principle of self-determination as an integral part of contemporary customary international law.
“The principle of self-determination has since World War II become a part of the United Nations Charter which states in Article 1(2) that one of the purposes of the UN is ‘to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
“We submit that this protocol envisages that people of any nation have the right to self-determination and although the Charter did not categorically impose direct legal obligations on member states, it implies that member states allow agitating or minority groups to self-govern as much as possible. This principle of self-determination has since been espoused in two additional treaties: The United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article 1 of both international documents promote and protect the right of a people to self-determination. State parties to these international documents are obliged to uphold the primacy and realization of this right as it cements the international legal philosophy that gives people the right to self-determination.
“As the Igbo agitations persist and assume threatening dimensions, we submit that there is need to ensure that they are given the opportunity to exercise the right of self-determination as entrenched under the aforementioned international statutes to which Nigeria is a signatory.”
In the same vein and in almost identical language, the IPOB reiterated its need to seek a referendum, not war, in its quest for self determination for the Igbo people. “We members of IPOB and our leadership worldwide have observed the grand conspiracy by some politicians to interpret that IPOB asking for self-determination is tantamount to declaration of war or asking for referendum as equal to hate speech. They always see civilized debate as a call to war; such people and the values they represent can never be reconciled with the civilizing effects of genuine democracy that allows for freedom of expression It is fair to assume, going by utterances of certain corrupt segments of the Nigerian society that most of what IPOB is saying and stands for is lost in translation because anybody with the most basic understanding of rudimentary English and constitutional law will know that self-determination does not mean war and that referendum is not hate speech.
“We would like to use this opportunity to clarify once again that IPOB is asking for self-determination as recognized in the United Nations Charter on the Rights of Indigenous People and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights…The only instrument IPOB has at its disposal is civil disobedience, which is entirely legal. Civil disobedience has nothing to do with armed conflict…Our leader; (Nnamdi) Kanu is a peaceful man…”
The ambivalence of government officials on a UN moderated referendum in the South East is understandable. But the certainty of how Igbos would vote is as predictable as thinking that “Europhiles” would win the Brexit campaign or that Donald Trump would defeat Mrs. Clinton.