IPOB 7 identity misfired

by

Sampson I. Onwuka

Radio Biafra is not an item organized for IPOB in Nigeria and speaks on Nigeria, divided by separatist argument – the once noted orator as they call him, Nnamdi Kanu and the organization IPOB is said to be proscribed in their individual capacities since there are grounds to do so, the question that remain to be asked if Nnamdi Kanu is a Nigerian and not entitled to political process? If he is Nigerian – it seems that Kanu argues backward that IPOB is pure play – mainly uses public media to disseminate information, a claim defamed by section 5(1) of TPAA, and by this, there is an argument that IPOB in principle differ from some of the pejorative stance of Kanu’s speeches – which remain to be proven - but it mirrors the point that he can be suspended by the group if Nigerian group so wishes --- that is taking into advisement the possibility that the group is an African Human Rights watchdog other than political expedient.

He is however to defend himself on the ‘rights to expression’ and may have a point when he indicates that asking for Nigeria to be disintegrated is not ‘extreme speech’ in spite of the section 96 for secession formally desputed, suggesting that the advice that people should stay home and not vote in Anambra State is not considered ‘extreme speech’ unless there are material grounds to indicate that he, Nnamdi Kanu and IPOB, are(were) physically and directly involved in blocking the elections in Anambra, which are grounds for his arrest for actions against the interest of the ‘State’ (unspecified but sufficient) – but to the grounds of ‘treasonable felony’ is also accepting that he is already a registered and voted Nigerian politician when he is not and therefore constituted a useful threat to other politicians, and for this, the count that his group was directly responsible for other matters arising from Anambra elections is not without injury.

This includes, Ben Onwuka and Ralph Uwachue are not yet politically elected officers, as such the use of felony in defining their actions are within reason but legally untenable. Not the most sound argument....The best we can make from all actions by the so-called separatist organization is that they are failing to explore the Jewish, Muslim side of Igbo people and other peoples of Biafra. That is, historically, Biafra is Hebraic and Jewish given the presence of extensive Jewish towns, villages, family names and practice. The language is moribund Hebrew - that is, to say that Igbo for a start is a residue of Greek, Sanskrit, English languages is to argue that they are closer to Greeks, Aramaic (not Arameans) than Hebrew. But the point is that their name is Igbo (Ibo, Eboe, Ivo) which is Hebrew in Portuguese and Spanish (Medieval Sources), as such the organization with Jewish identity (New Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism, Messianic, etc.,) can really look at the more permanent feature of the Igbos and the Biafrans perhaps the 'house of Israel' which remained intact in Spain and Portugal under the verbiage 'Marrano' for Jewish Nation until at least 1492. One final point is that there is no real connection between current Arabic and English language because no one has compared English to Arab but I, otherworldly, can show that Arabic language which influence the recovery of Hebrew in the 12th/13th century Spain/Portugal, is an archive of English language and also contain as much Greek words and Sanskrit just as in Aramaic as we find with Igbo language. Yes this is possible through Igbo language and may further emphasize the point that Islam rule Europe and the rest is perhaps a footnote to Arabic which was perfected through Aramaic and Kufra.

These organizations should consider themselves Jewish Nation of some kind and try the model for Israel using political representative and collective use of 'Bund' for all the parties, that is a Nigerian 'Bund' or Biafran 'Bund' closely resembling the Jewish Union party.

One time incident in Anambra are not automatic grounds to suggest a pattern of behavior for an organization, does not merit a criminal incident worthy of actors from Federal Government but it opens a possibility that IPOB in such a State was misbehaving and therefore a record against them. The argue holds its own court that the claim of misconduct akin to infringement of other people’s freedom to vote is serious grounds to be politically dealt with, and remain so till such facts are established by several groups in light of Lai Mohammed claims, and if there is an argument the Senate may hear arguments on what to do with such organization. Secondly seem that Nnamdi Kanu was the pioneer head of the IPOB or principally the master-mind of its actions. It leads to other actions that Kanu may or may not necessarily be involved in the stale elections in Anambra State but he seems to have been quite active during Buhari time-off from office. Such a pretext to recommendation for possible actions against IPOB will itself serve as a precedence in handling similar cases without necessarily fanning recondite retaliatory proscription, with or without merit.