Nigeria my Husband Nigeria!!!!! "Please give me my right, I am not treated fairly in this relationship..... I don't want war and I am not calling for war.... I am just requesting for my fair share ... You have treated me like nobody for 57 years And my speaking up against it now should not threaten you..... Just do the needful.... my ancestors have asked for this before through dialogue, you suppress them. they went to war with you... you massacre them with the help of your colonial masters.... they came up again as MASSOB... you imprisoned them and bribe their leaders. for how long should we keep quiet..... For too long, you sent your police to kill us why protesting legally through non-violent means... you have use intimation to suppress us and keep reminding us of the previous war with you..... Nigeria ...Have you asked yourself one question..... Have you asked me why I am crying every day for separation? I am your wife. you need to know my feeling.... beating me, killing my children, starving me, denying my children access to education even when they have merited it, denying my children job and opportunities, seeing me as a second-class wife and abusing and raping me... sending herdsmen to kill my children...and many more ... This marriage is dealing a big blow on me…. I cannot concentrate anymore.... I know my children who are living comfortable with me here or who have gone abroad to different countries for greener pastures and are doing well for themselves may not see the cry of a devastated mother.... I know some of my children have taking sides with their abusive father... But they are all my children... and I still love all of them... Soon they will know that my fight is for their kids who happen to be my grand children and their children children I am worn-out... The bitter complaints of my other starving children is too much for me to keep quiet... who will help me out... I have used diplomacy... it did not work, I have tried to put up a fight... it didn't work... tell me what should I do........ you should know my feeling .. I believe my feeling and opinion should matter in this relationship.... Hear the daily cry of heartbroken mother and her children......... These feelings are real...

Nnamdi Kanu said that Nigeria is like a zoo where bigger animal prey on smaller animal , basically he called it survival of the fittest zone... In his interview in 2014 where he first made this reference, he listed so many things that happen in Nigeria that is quite similar to the Animal Kingdom. The big question is – IS NIGERIA ACTING LIKE A ZOO? In Igbo tradition, when a fellow man calls you a bastard, you may pick a fight. But the wisest thing to do is always going back home to ask your mother “Who is my father?” A zoo in my definition is a man-made habitat where the animals are kept to give them false comfort of still living in their natural habitat. Most times it is either to keep them from extinction and/or to use them as a tourist site for the purpose of satisfying man. In the case of Nigeria, the only thing that makes us different from Zoo in the natural sense is that we walk on two legs, eat cooked food and wear cloths. Besides that, one can clearly observe the similarities that make a zoo what it is. Therefore I see his term as a metaphor. For examples. Nigeria is the only country that has sold oil for over 30 years and still have up to 80% living as paupers. In Nigeria, if you are a big thief(politician like Lions in the jungle) you are untouchable. In Nigeria, poor masses are killed everyday by the police and nobody is held accountable. In Nigeria, the judicial system is a mess where the more money or bribe you give, the more you buy away your freedom from the crimes you committed. It is only in Nigeria that Cows probably have more right in Nigeria than a large section of so called Nigerians. That the so called President have visited his cows more than the people he governs. Nigeria is the country where a politician can steal a total allocation of a State and go scotch free. Where there are 4 international standard refineries but they still import petrol products because few men benefits from the process. The country where past leaders have working private refineries but the country lack one. Where the state of hospitals are in shamble, no medical treatment because the few rich people can fly abroad to treat themselves. Where a politician can be brought to court with 50 count charges and go free if he can give the right percentage of the loot to equally corrupt judges. Where a man said that he will soak monkeys and Baboons in blood if he loses an election and went ahead to do it by killing innocent Nigerians in the North and still became the president. Where a man says that an attack on Boko Haram, “a group of terrorists” is an attack on the North and still rose to lead same country without educational qualification as prescribed by the constitution of Nigeria. Where they are two laws of Sharia in the North and Circular in one country of much ethnic, religious and cultural diversity. A country where only people from a particular part of the country are adjourned corrupt in office whereas their counterparts from the North and West do worse looting and nobody even mention it. A country where admission into universities is based on the State you come from. A country where over 3 million innocent people were starved to death for asking to be free in 1967, and to date the matter is still being swept under the carpet. A country where a supposed head of anti-crime fighting body stole all the money in the EFCC treasury and goes free because he is from the Northern extraction. A country where people are clamped into prison for mentioning Biafra or running a peaceful protest, whereas people from the North kill at will in the name of Islam and go scotch free. A place where you must denounce being a Igbo before you can get a federal contract like Sunday Oliseh did to become Super Eagle’s coach. A country where people like IBB, OBJ and Buhari still boast about committing war crimes and still walk free and detect the fate of the country. A place where a particular part of the same country does not have right to build any industry to make sure they are never self-reliant. Where coal mining was banned to make sure the particular area of Igbo Land become unproductive. A place where you are told that your brothers are your enemies whereas the people saying it are the ones killing you. Where Cattle headers are free to carry AK47 around and have every right to kill, encroach on your land to feed their cattle even if it means grazing down your cash crops. A place where the word of a president is above the order of the Supreme court on the right of citizens. No good roads, No clean drinking water, No infrastructure, No good hospitals, No employment, No good education. But one of the highest world oil producing countries with two houses of law makers whose salaries is 4 times higher than that of the America’s president and yet they have nothing to show for it. Where a particular group of people has been forced to abandon their land to foreign countries because surviving in Igbo land has become a crime. Where you drill oil from a particular region and use the proceeds to enrich and develop the North, leaving the area producing the oil to lay waste in use through environmental degradation, poverty, oppression and neglect. A country where people are arrested and locked up for listening to Radio Biafra or having the App on their phone. Where a man was discharged by the court for committing no crime but remained held by DSS for exercising his human right to freedom of choice and association. With all these stated above, one wonders why Nigeria will not called a zoo. But Nnamdi Kanu is not the only one that have made such reference...What was in Buhari’s mind when he called Nigerians “Monkeys and Baboon?” Quite recently, The president's wife was referring to his husband as the King of the lesser Animals . Are they not confirming indeed that Nigeria as we have it today is a Zoo

According to Prof Ekweremmadu, he opined that "restructuring is not an emotional issue, but a political imperative for Nigeria to make the desired progress" and I totally agree with him. For us to have a better nation, we must change the way this country is been run. I disagree totally with those who see the calls for restructuring as tantamount to call for disintegration; I also refuse to accept that a call for referendum is a call for war. For all I know, referendum is a call for a general vote by the electorate on a unique political question. In this case, I believe it is a conscious call for all Nigerians to evaluate this fruitless union that have existed more than 57 years and then consciously agree or disagree to continue the union. unless there is something some people know that we don't know that everybody that kick against this restructuring debate evokes war and disintegration as if restructuring is synonymous with war ..if not, let's stop equating all these legitimate calls to mean war or disintegration. To be candid, the Biafran agitation and the call for referendum is actually the perpetuation of marginalization, exclusion, imbalances, injustice and induced poverty that comes with a dysfunctional federal arrangement like ours that is capable of bending a nation towards restiveness and implosion”. If this country should work towards inclusion, justice, liberty, and allowing every component state considerable autonomy to utilize its resources and its potentials to develop at its own pace, promotes unity as well as speedy and competitive development among state...I believe the agitation will naturally fade away. But is it possible? The current President Mr. Buhari is a tribalist and very vindictive. After the election he promise to deal with those that didn't vote him in.....and he followed his threat. If not tell me, apart from the constitutional guarantee that at least one Minister must be appointed from each state of the Federation, other federal appointments and provision of infrastructural amenities are expected to be handled in such a way that every section of the country will have a sense of belonging and recognition no matter their political choice and behaviors. The Igbo nation, from evidence available, is clearly marginalized in the country, especially by the current Buhari regime, and this should not be so. Few examples could serve here. No Igbo man could be found at the head of any serious Federal establishment either in the military, police, para-military, the Presidency or first-grade Departments and Agencies. The roads in the South-Eastern part of the country is perhaps the worst in the whole Federation. Even though the state of the roads cannot totally be blamed on Bu­hari regime, this government is close to two years in the saddle now, and this is enough time for the President to have taken distinctive actions on the sorry state of infrastructure in the South-East. This could have assured the people that the current government cares. The rail network which the current government of President Buhari has voted over N500 billion in the 2016 budget to tackle which connects South-South and South-West zones, Igbo areas were deftly dodged, even Aba, Nnewi and Onitsha which was said to have been part of the initial design have been jettisoned. Also, Enugu Airport which was approved by former President Obasanjo as International Airport but did nothing to actualize that dream until President Goodluck Jonathan came to power to take it to the level where it is now, has not received any attention from the Buhari administration to make it truly international. The current social interven­tion programmes of this administration has not changed the cry of the Igbo that they are being marginalized. In its Economic Empowerment and Poverty Alleviation Programme, the Federal Government recently disbursed loans of N100,000 each to 23,400 beneficiaries in 13 states of the country, none of which is South-Eastern state. It could be recalled that when the Federal Government sometime last year, unveiled the plan to acquire foreign loan of $29.96 billion for provision of infrastructure in some parts of the country, only the Igbo states of South-East were not listed as beneficiaries. Also, the recently released N5,000 monthly stipend to the very poor and vulnerable in the country, which is regarded as the pilot phase of the Buhari Poverty Eradication Programme, none of the Igbo states was amongst the beneficiaries. There are many other examples that could be cited which invariably justify the cry of marginalization by the Igbo ethnic group. It seems that the President has lend credence to the statement credited to him when he was on a trip to the United States of America early in his administration that those who gave him only 5 per cent votes will get only 5 per cent of his attention unlike those who gave him 97 per cent votes. Until Nigeria gets a president “who sees every part of the country as his or her constituency, and is committed to reuniting a highly polarized nation and reawakening the giant in all parts thereof; and so long as people are mistreated on grounds of their electoral choices or where they come from, the quest for president of the various ethnic extractions will continue”. And the more this government become repressive and refuses to engage this agitators on a round table.....a much bigger national political and structural earthquake will shake this nation soon. Those who have the ear of the "King of the weaker animals" should get to him on time. Anthony-Claret Onwutalobi

My people... we want to use this opportunity to thank each an every member of this page especially those that liked and have participated in the posts so far. we promise to continue to entertain you and also provide you with facts and information that we inform your knowledge about who you are and how to appreciate and promote your cultural heritage.

Each answer attracts a PRIZE NIGERIA FIRST SEMESTER EXAMINATION: 2016/2017 ACADEMIC SESSION. COURSE TITLE: Introduction to APC Government COURSE CODE: APC 101 TIME ALLOWED: 2HRS 45 MIN COURSE UNIT: 6 INSTRUCTION: Attempt All Questions 1. Discuss the probability of APC blaming GEJ for the next 3years for (i.) Dollar increase. (ii.)Fuel Price increase (iii.) Power Failure (iv.) Unemployment (v. )Fulani Herdsmen Killings 2. If APC = All Promises Cancelled, where PMB is a constant, discuss the speed at which: ( i.) N5k promise is cancelled (ii.) Feeding of school pupil is cancelled (iii.) NYSC allowance is reduced iv. Fuel pump prices are increased 3. Define the term, ''Budget padding''. 4. Mention 3 types of APC propaganda you know, and how they can be used in 21st century politics. 5. Mention 5 IDP you know that feeds with N14000 everyday. 6. Mention the next 3 countries PMB will travel to and the disgrace he will receive. 7. If PMB is silent when herdsmen kill people and buys jet fighter when Biafra is mentioned, what is the probability that PMB is not a terrorist? 8. Write short notes on these mad phrases; (i). masquerade dressing, (ii.) importation of grass (iii). fantastically corrupt. 9. If x is change and y is lies/ propaganda, solve the equation, 2x + 5y = ? 10. If you used to be corrupt, but now fantastically corrupt, explain the effect of gravitational force on you. 11. with a labeled diagram, describe the famous losses ever witnessed in recent time: (i)-- loss of budget. (II)-- loss of WAEC certificate. (iii)- loss of the moon. (iv)- ear disorder. 12. If President Buhari @ 73yrs received his 1953 secondary school classmates, with relevant logic, explain how old PMB was when he finished secondary school considering the fact that from 1953-2016 is 63 years. 13. Write a short Essay on why Hajiya Aisha Buhari "visited" USA but did not go to say 'Hi' to Mrs. Mitchell Obama. 14. Write a short note on the statement 'I belong to everyone and I belong to no one' 15. My wife belongs to the kitchen and the other room.. Explain. What is the other room used for and how does it affect the Nigerian economy Your Time Starts Now!!! Forwarded as received ooh thanks

What do you say?

Religion is killing Africans and it's the cause of Africans' poverty...hard truth for all blacks.

NNAMDI KANU: NIGERIA’S NEMESIS? - BY REUBEN ABATI The most discussed subject in Nigeria today is what is called “restructuring” and indeed so popular is this subject that it has attracted the attention of roadside commentators, the bright, the not-so-bright, the mischievous and the outrightly unintelligent all united by the singular claim that Nigeria belongs to all of us and we all have a right to determine its future. The last person who brought up this subject with me is a mechanic in Abeokuta! He had heard about Biafra, the Arewa youths, the President’s absence, Professor Osinbajo, Nnamdi Kanu, what Igbo leaders, Northern leaders and Yoruba leaders have said about restructuring and he wanted a conversation. That’s how democracy works, not so? The inclusiveness is actually very good for us… But the point I have always made stands proven: that Nigeria remains an unanswered question, more than a century after the amalgamation of 1914. Before and after independence, virtually every government has had to deal with this same question, viz, the national question. Brought together in an unwieldy, unequal and uneven union by the British, Nigeria’s about 400 ethnic nationalities have been unable to transform into one nation, one union, a community of people and communities driven by a common purpose – to create a united, progressive nation, under the umbrella of patriotism and the common good. We have fought each other since 1950 to date, we did not even all agree on independence, and since that happened, we have been at each other’s throats. We ended up fighting a civil war, and from all indications we are at this moment, seemingly preparing for another one. The laziest excuse is that the British caused all our problems, but more than 50 years after independence it should be clear enough that we are the source of our collective agony. Other countries that were at the same level with us in 1960 have since moved on and developed into better nations despite their own internal contradictions. Nigerian leaders have perpetually lived in denial. Every step forward has resulted in our country taking two steps backwards. A combination of the big-man-syndrome, the too-know syndrome, the us-before-others-mentality, ethnic politics, sectarian politics, greed, cronyism and a terrible leadership recruitment process has turned our process of nationhood into an unending struggle. Today, fewer Nigerians believe in the idea of Nigeria. In 1977/78, the Constituent Assembly whose deliberations resulted in the 1979 Constitution almost ended with fisticuffs. The 2005 National Political Reforms Conference did not fare better either, as the Niger Delta conferees staged a walk-out and the politics of Third Term or no Third Term sabotaged the entire process. In 2014, the outcomes of yet another National Conference could not be followed through because a succeeding administration declared it would not even look at the report. At every stage when it looks as if this country is faced with an opportunity to address the national question, certain interest groups erect the roadblocks of denial and wishful thinking. No country can live perpetually in denial. This is the message of former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union and their disintegration. As for the military, they merely worsened Nigerian politics. Fifty years after the outbreak of the civil war, we now have a man called Nnamdi Kanu. He may well end up as Nigeria’s nemesis. He is the most frightening product of our many years and acts of denial and he may well throw the country into a nightmare worse than Boko Haram, if care is not taken. He started out as the leader of a group called the Indigenous People of Biafra and as director of Radio Biafra. He and those who bought into his rhetoric of secession and the renewal of the Biafra dream organized protests across the world, and they looked, from afar, like a group of disgruntled Nigerians in diaspora. In the foreign lands where most of the members lived, they looked like persons over-enjoying the freedom of speech from a safe distance. They didn’t appear to have the force of MASSOB, which is locally based and seemingly more malleable. The renewed struggle for Biafra that Kanu and his crowd talked about could have been nothing more than an internet and television revolution. But everything went wrong the moment Nnamdi Kanu chose to visit home and he was arrested, detained and taken through a court trial. Whoever ordered Nnamdi Kanu’s arrest and prosecution did this country a bad turn. Kanu is a character that could have been better ignored. His trial and travails have turned him into a hero and a living martyr among Igbos. And the young man so far, understands the game. Since he was released on bail, he has been taunting the Nigerian state and government. Daily, he dares those who granted him bail and he laughs at the conditions they gave him. He associates with more than 10 persons. He moves about Igboland freely, like a spirit. He addresses rallies and grants interviews. He has been busy issuing statements. On May 30, he ordered a shut-down of the entire South Eastern region and that order was obeyed not only in the South East but also in parts of the South-South, and Abuja. Nnamdi Kanu who probably barely struggled to survive as a black man in Europe, has been turned by the Nigerian Government into a credible apostle of a resurgent Biafran revolution. The other day when he held a meeting in Umuahia, over 5,000 persons trooped to his compound. Kanu is a master of symbolism. He is exploiting the Jewish symbol: to signal to the world that Igbos are being persecuted. He visits symbolic sites of the civil war to prick the injured part of the Igbo consciousness and mobilise the people. His pre-eminence is a comment on the quality of the state and its strategic intelligence system. If he succeeds with his threats, we should know those to blame. A few days ago, someone on social media further compared him to Jesus Christ and described him as the true saviour. Every revolutionary in history graduates from ordinariness to being messianic, propelled by opiumized endorsement. Nnamdi Kanu is certainly capable of doing more damage to the system than the MASSOB, OPC, and such other groups, and should he push things further, he could ignite a crisis worse than Boko Haram. My gut feeling is that some people in certain places are beginning to realize this and that is why Nnamdi Kanu out of detention appears untouchable; it is the reason he is able to dare the state, and ridicule his bail conditions. The lesson here is obvious enough: the brazen use of force and intimidation to deal with certain situations could create really bad unintended consequences. The Federal Government under Acting President Yemi Osinbajo has been holding meetings with key stakeholders within the Federation. The consultations are in order, but the Acting President is yet to talk to the right people. He is talking to people who carry their international passports in their pockets because they don’t know what tomorrow promises in Nigeria. He is consulting persons whose family members are mostly one-leg-in-one-leg-out Nigerians; many of them in fact have dual nationality. Nigeria is their trading post, the place where they make the money they and their children spend in Dubai, UK and wherever. The people the Federal Government should be talking to are the angry Igbo youths who now kneel down to greet Nnamdi Kanu and call him their god, the Arewa youths who have told the Igbos to get out of Nigeria and get away, and who have called the Yoruba names while further insisting that they are not afraid of the Nigerian government arresting them. The people to talk to are the leaders of the various other groups who are taking sides. Leaders of the Middle Belt and the South South are holding talks; some Yorubas are planning to hold theirs this week in Ibadan. Draw the map of the emerging rhetoric in Nigeria today; what you have is a divided country. The scenario is so painfully reminiscent of the early 60s. Every Nigerian leader since the civil war has boasted that he would not preside over the dismemberment of Nigeria. Some of those leaders have suddenly started saying restructuring is the answer, how nice!- the same restructuring they never wanted and that they didn’t want as at 2015. Crisis management is an important part of nation-building. We have failed to manage most of the crises that have befallen our nation, on a sustainable basis, and that is why every proverbial snake that is killed suddenly resurrects. It is the reason we have produced a country where the population of the aggrieved appears to be growing daily. It is the reason Nnamdi Kanu and his followers have become the fish-bone in the throat of government. As things stand, there is no stronger voice in Igboland today than that of Nnamdi Kanu. The Igbo elites and the self-styled political leaders of the East know that Kanu is more influential than all of them put together. How many among them can command a willing crowd of 5, 000 to their doorsteps? The politicians hire crowds, but the crowds go to Kanu and obey him. With the kind of influence he wields, Kanu is in a position to dictate the political future of the South East. The same political leaders who posed for photographs at the Aso Villa will go to him at night and beg him to support their candidates if future elections hold in that region. They will condemn Kanu during the day, but lick his boots at night. The ancillary challenge however is the worsening trend of ethnic polarization with regards to the control of power at the centre. I describe this as the conflict between the na-my-brother-dey-there syndrome and the no-be-my-brother reactive tendency. It used to be the case in this country up till the time President Olusegun Obasanjo left in 2007, that whoever held power in Abuja was openly and strongly supported by other Nigerians, regardless of ethnicity or religion. Obasanjo got more support from outside Yorubaland, and probably felt more reassured by persons from outside his own ethnic group and religion. With the death of President Yar’Adua in office, ethnicity, a long-standing threat to Nigerian unity became more potent. The Boko Haram, with its base in the Northern part of the country gave the succeeding Jonathan administration hell. With the emergence of President Muhammadu Buhari in 2015, the same Boko Haram suddenly became tame. Curiously, the militants of the South East and the South South, who had been significantly quiet during the Jonathan years, also became more vocal and calls for secession became more strident the moment their kinsman and in-law left office. By the same token, the conflict between pastoralists and farmers, an old problem, became worse, with the former asserting themselves more arrogantly for no reason other than that they are sure of better protection under a central government controlled by the North. Our point: Nigeria’s stability should not be so dependent on the whims and caprices of ethnic gladiators. No Nigerian President should be at the mercy of ethnic or religious politics, now or in the future. The debate about restructuring and renegotiations is therefore useful and most relevant. It is indeed urgent if we must take the wind out of the sail of the secessionists and nihilists. Those who have always blocked or hijacked the people’s conference must by now realize that we are close to “the point of no return” on a review and rephrasing of the Nigerian question, in order to make every Nigerian feel a part of the Nigerian project. The alternative in all possible shapes appears ominous.

Some of us don't really understand this Ahiara diocese crisis. Some of us don't even know how a bishop is selected in the catholic church. But I have seen lately that so many social media warriors are busy throwing punches to the church without studying the background of the matter. It is even embarrassing to see governor and local chiefs trying to plead to some of these priests to obey the pope and follow his advice and move on. Since it is already a public debate, for the sake of clarity and the benefit of those that really want to understand the problem, I will throw a little light on this issue. This is my space...if you must contribute "Be civil" In the catholic church, the second Vatican council (1962–1965), declared that the right of nominating and appointing bishops belongs per se exclusively to the competent ecclesiastical authority. Ordinarily if all things been equal, a Bishop is required to submit his resignation letter when he turns 75 years of age, he can submit it before then but it is the duty of the Vatican to approve of it. If the resignation is accepted with immediate effect, the episcopal see becomes vacant on publication of the pope's decision. However, Vacancy of a see may occur also because of a bishop's transfer to another see or position, or because of his death. In the case of a nunc pro tunc acceptance, the see does not become vacant immediately, but the process that leads to the appointment of a successor begins without delay. One important element in selecting a bishop is the list of priests, of both the diocesan and the religious clergy, that the bishops of the ecclesiastical province or the whole Episcopal Conference judge to be suitable generically (without reference to any particular see) for appointment as bishops. They are required to draw up this list at least once every three years, so that it is always recent. When it comes to a concrete appointment for a particular see, the papal representative (apostolic nuncio or delegate) asks either the outgoing bishop, or in case of a sede vacante, the vicar general or diocesan administrator, to draw up a report on its situation and the needs. That person will be the bishop who has presented his resignation or, if the see is vacant, the diocesan administrator or apostolic administrator. The papal representative is also obliged to consult the metropolitan archbishop and the other bishops of the province, the president of the bishops’ conference, and at least some members of the college of consultors and the cathedral chapter. He may also consult others, whether clergy, diocesan or religious, and "lay persons of outstanding wisdom Canon law insists on enabling those consulted to provide information and express their views confidentially, requiring that they be consulted "individually and in secret" The nuncio then decides on a short list, or terna, of three candidates for further investigation and seeks precise information on each of them. Since if it were widely known that a priest who was not the one who was finally chosen for the post had been under consideration, people might think he had been excluded because of some fault found in him (a groundless conclusion, since all those examined may be eminently worthy and suitable, but only one can be selected), the nuncio will ask those consulted about individual candidates to observe the strictest confidentiality on the fact of the consultation. He will then send to the Holy See a list (known as a "terna") of the (usually) three candidates that seem to be the most appropriate for consideration, together with all the information that has been gathered on them and accompanying the information with the conclusions that he himself draws from the evidence. The qualities that a candidate must have are listed in canon 378 §1. As well as being at least 35 years old and a priest for at least 5 years, he should be "outstanding in strong faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence and human virtues", and should possess the other qualities needed for fulfilling the office in question; and he should be well versed in sacred Scripture, theology and canon law and, preferably, hold a doctorate in one of these fields. There is no where it is stated that the bishop must come from among the priest of that diocese let alone from the same ethnolects or tribe. The congregation of the Roman Curia responsible for the appointment (one of the four indicated above) studies the documentation provided by the nuncio, taking into consideration his opinion, but not necessarily accepting it. It might even reject all the candidates he has proposed and ask him to prepare another list, or it might ask him to provide more information on one or more of the priests who have already been presented. When the Congregation decides on which priest should be appointed, it presents its conclusions to the pope, asking him to make the appointment. If he agrees, the papal act is communicated to the nuncio for him to obtain the consent of the priest to his appointment and to choose a date for its publication. The newly appointed bishop is obliged to get episcopal consecration within three months of the arrival the papal bull of his appointment, which is usually prepared only at least a month after the publication. If the consecration takes place within the diocese, he takes charge immediately. If it occurs elsewhere, a separate act is required, after the consecration, for taking possession of his new post. Bringing the process to a conclusion obviously requires much time, usually taking at least nine months, and it may on occasions take up to two years. The procedure described above is the normal one for the appointment of a diocesan bishop. So in the case of Ahiara Diocese, It happened that the late Bishop Victor Adibe Chikwe who served as the first bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Ahiara from his appointment on November 18, 1987, until his death on September 16, 2010, fulfilled this obligation and submitted names of potential candidates for bishop all the time he was alive as stipulated by the church law. When he died in September 16, 2010, the episcopal see of Ahiara diocese becomes vacant after the publication of the pope Benedicts's decision. The apostolic nuncio and papal delegate started their consultation in line with the guidelines stipulated in the Canon law. During the secret consultation, all the indigenous priests of Ahiara diocese that was in the list that was provided by the bishop were heavily criticized and rejected by different factions of the Ahiara indigenous priests. Since this is a secret meeting. it becomes so crucial that none of the qualified nominees got acceptance or rather endorsement from mainly their local priests To the Papal nuncio, it appears that there was different factions or cliques among these priests. He also observed that these priests have started unnecessary negatives politics with things of God. In his report, he noted that it was impossible to get a priest from the list. The episcopal see remained vacant for some time because of these internal struggles among Ahiara Diocesan priests and they were unable to agree on a particular "Mbaise indigenous priest" to be elected as bishop of their diocese. Looking at the sensitive nature of this problem, the Apostolic nuncio and the Vatican started looking for a way forward. After due Consultation with the bishop conference in Nigeria. The catholic bishops advised the Vatican to appoint a neutral person for the diocese to avoid crisis. It is in view of this that the Vatican selected another qualified bishop candidate who happen to be an igbo person as well and appointed him to occupy the seat of the episcopal see of Ahiara diocese. "All hell let loose" Mind you, the intention of the Vatican was to bring a neutral person to the diocese who will help to solve this problem and harmonize these factions and negative politics going on among those priest. Little did they know that some of the Ahiara catholic priests will resort to ethnic bigotism , ethnolect and dialectical prejudice and discrimination among their fellow Igbo. The Papal delegates had previously thought that all these people are of Igbo extraction and no such ethnic bigotry of this nature will ever be surfaced. But here we are. Bishop Okpalaeke is an igbo man from Anambra State. Mbaise is in Imo State. All of us are brothers. people from Mbaise intermarry with Anambra people and they speak and understand each other. But the same few arrogant priests that rejected their own indigenous appointed priests that was listed as qualified candidates and started another agitation after Bishop Okpalaeke's appointment. One of their argument was that, they have produced so many priests and thus have qualified indigenous priests that should be given a bishop. As you have seen above, there is nowhere in the church law that gave them that right to select a bishop from their ethnic affiliations. The criteria for selecting a bishop is not based on how many priest you have produced in your diocese. The right of nominating and appointing bishops belongs per se exclusively to the competent ecclesiastical authority which is the Holy see. There is no law that forbid the pope in selecting bishop from china or Europe for them. The current papal nuncio in Ireland now is an igbo man. Secondly, they argued that the appointed Igbo bishop cannot speak their Igbo dialects or understand their culture. This is funny. First of all, Igbo catholic community have had European bishops in that eastern part of Nigeria before and those bishop survived very well let alone an Igbo man. Remember Bishop Shanahan is not an Igbo man but he was a bishop in Igbo land and he did wonderful things. The canon law however did not give such provision of language similarity as impediment for selecting a bishop. Language is never considered. Thirdly, they argued that the list provided by their late bishop was not followed. As you may recall, the same people rejected all the priest. they were busy writing petition upon petition backstabbing all the candidate selected. The church is wise and may not like to bring more problem by appointing from the list to avoid agitation. For me, it seems some of these priests have secret agenda or want to bring down this diocese. The parishoners should not follow this part with them. This is becoming an embarrassment to the church. How can Rochas Okorocha of all people come to preach peace to priests. It is bad. Unfortunately, we have seen that some of these priests have started playing to the emotions of innocent parishioners and fanning the flames of ethinicism, bigotry and discrimination. Planting seed of hatred among the Igbos. What are they preaching in the pulpit.... It is shameful to see men of God play politic with the laity to this level. I saw some horrible graphic images and even some carried empty coffin to protest with omu leaves on their mouth. Some priest were in their company. What a shame. You must know that catholic church is hierarchical and it is not democratic and It's shameful when you read some people say when an Anambra Bishop speaks, Mbaise people won't hear him as if he will be speaking Hausa or Yoruba. And I ask, so Igbo is not one? And we are talking about Biafra And I have read from some people defending this horrible act of rebellion? The person made a Bishop is not a Fulani man. This is not a Kanuri man . This is not a Tiv. And you are defending this? It is immoral, offensive and sickening. Archbishop Kaigma has argued it all, if Onye lgbo cannot accept Onye Igbo, who on earth will he accept? A Fulani man??? We must understand this background before pitching our tent. This is 7 years after the death of bishop Chikwe. The church has tried all possible ways to solve this problem but some of these priests are bent on deceiving some people. This display of stubbornness and disobedience has led the pope to demand their renewal of obedience to the Apostolic see. So, don’t join those who want to copy from the book of Martin Luther the estrange European priest who spearheaded the separation of the protestant and English church in the 16th century for mere arrogance and ulterior motives. Anthony-Claret Onwutalobi

First time in Nigeria, The presidency lays wreath in memory of Biafrans raped, maimed and killed by Nigerian soldiers.

Biafra 50 Years After - Reconciliation: What have we learned? Paper presented at The Conference - MEMORY AND NATION BUILDING: BIAFRA 50 YEARS AFTER: A SOBER REFLECTION. By PROF. T. UZODIMA NWALA President Alaigbo Development Foundation (ADF). Introduction. Before I thank the organisers of this Conference and pay my tribute to the Memory of my friend, late Major-General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua, in whose Foundation Center this historic event is being organised, let me quickly dismiss certain lingering pernicious fallacies that have dominated all discussion about the coup of January 15, 1966 and the Biafra War. First, the Chairman of the occasion, Alhaji Ahmed Joda, has alluded to the January 15, 1966 coup as an Igbo coup that, according to him, was replied by a Northern coup of July 29 1966. Let it be said loud and clear that that coup, namely January 15, 1966 coup, was not an Igbo coup. It was a coup led by certain Igbo and Yoruba Officers, involving the active participation of soldiers from the North. The aim, as has been stated again and again, by the leaders of the coup was to release Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who was in detention at the time and install him the Prime Minister of Nigeria. That coup was foiled by Igbo military officers. Igbo political leaders and activists knew nothing about the coup. Again the Incursion into the Mid-West by the Biafran troops was not a quest for territorial grabbing by the Igbos. Ojukwu sent troops under the Command of Col, banjo in response to Chief Awolowo’s request for troops to help liberate Yoruba land from the occupation of soldiers from the North. By the time Col Banjo got to Ore, the British had gotten Gowon to offer Chief Awolowo Vice Chairmanship of the Nigerian Government. Awolowo, therefore, asked Banjo not to proceed on his mission. General Yakubu Gowon knows the truth of all these things. And that is why the Alaigbo Development Foundation (ADF) had written him and asked him to tell Nigerians and the whole world the truth about the January 15, 1966 coup and the Biafra incursion into the Mid-West.to stop all the lies against Ndigbo, which have been the basis of the burden they carry as a nation within the Nigerian Federation. Secondly, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, the former Head of State and a frontline commander on the Federal side during the war, said that they (the Federal military leaders) conducted the war without any hate or vengeance because it was a quarrel between brothers. To this one is constrained to ask a few pertinent questions How did the world come to describe the conduct of the war as POGROM? What about the policy that hunger was a legitimate weapon of war and so was justified in its application against the Biafrans? What about bombing of refugee camps, market places, churches, etc? Again, when Chief Obasanjo said that they, the victorious side, have been more magnanimous than the victors in the American civil war, where, according to him, those who lost the war never had a chance to be President of America until several decades if not a century later, I would ask him WHAT ABOUT SOUTH AFRICA? WHAT ABOUT NELSON MANDELLA? Such assertions rather than heal the wounds of the war, keep the wounds aglow, rather than reconcile pour raw paper of unjustified arrogance on the wounded hearts of the Biafrans. How can you genuinely talk about reconciliation with that kind o mind-set. The truth is that for General Obasanjo, the Biafrans are defeated people. Period! Indeed, before we can talk about reconciliation, we must accept that grave wrongs were done to the Biafrans, Before, During and Since the end of the war. Tribute to General Yar’Adua. NOW, Mr Chairman, Ladies and \Gentlemen, let me go on to thank the organisers of this Conference - the Yar’Adua Foundation and the six Nigerian Universities partnering with the Foundation; the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Initiative for West Africa who have provided support for this Conference - Biafra: 50 Years After. What is more, I would like to pay tribute to the memory of my late friend, General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua. I met him for the first time during the 1994-5 National Constitutional Conference. There we struck a friendship that would have born great fruits but for his untimely death. I personally escaped being arrested with him. General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua, became a great democrat after the war despite his aristocratic background. He genuinely believed that this wobbly Federation could be given a dependable foundation. Consequently, he set out to recruit gifted compatriots to work with him for that purpose. What a great hunter of talent Shehu was! I remember two memorable moments in our interaction. One afternoon, after lunch in his house, we sat down on the sofa. I asked him “General why is it that when you are not smoking cigar (cigarette), you are chewing kola nut? He answered me. I will not tell you his answer today. Wait for my Memoire that should be ready by my next birthday. At another moment, also after lunch with him and late Prof. Aborisade, we sat down on the sofa. Shehu said to me “Dr Nwala, let me show you why we Northerners are reluctant to relinquish political power”. He brought out two volumes of strategic studies which he had commissioned some intellectuals to produce in preparation for the Constitutional Conference of 1994-5. I glanced through volume 1 which deals with the indices of power in Nigeria. I read the discussion, looked at the statistics and the graph, and shook my head, and said to myself this guy is a great political actor. I also reserve the details of what I read in that volume as well as our discussion for the sake of my forthcoming memoire. I saw those two volumes of strategic studies at the Library of the Yar’Adua Center when I visited there about two week ago. What is important in this narrative is that General Yar’Adua was avery sincere leader, he always spoke to me and to anyone in his political company from the bottom of his heart. He was sincerely in search of a genuine way forward. He was a man who knew that all is not well with the Nigerian Federation and genuinely sough the correct path to its healing! The point of the story is to reveal a bit of the life of this great political strategist, who if he had lived after that Conference, he and the powerful circle of comrades he had built at the Conference would have helped to see to a more liberal accommodating political order in Nigeria. Shehu was the darling of a liberal democratic movement that was emerging in Nigeria before he died. He was equally hated by what many of us call the hegemonist who have consistently aborted every opportunity to create a democratic political culture. It is the later who have consistently made it difficult to achieve a genuine reconciliation in Nigeria. It is these forces that have insisted on a Federation founded on the peace of the grave yard. Yes, General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua along with the compatriots he had worked to put together would have constitute an authentic force for reconciliation and national integration. He was a victim of the forces of hegemony. Post –Biafra Reconciliation – What Lessons? During the trial of Adolf Hitler after Germany and her allies lost the war to the Allied Forces, the following exchange took place between Hitler and his interlocutor – Interlocutor to Hitler: You were responsible for the Second World War? Hitler: No! The Versailles Treaties was. I believe this Conference has been provoked by the renewed agitation for Biafra. In that case, a similar question can be posed to the Biafra Self-determination Agitators in Nigeria today as to whether they are responsible for the renewed Agitation for Biafra. I imagine that the Biafra Freedom Agitators, just like Adolf Hitler, would emphatically respond NO! They would rather blame the present upsurge for Self-determination and Biafra and all its fallouts on all those leaders on the victorious side who, rather than pursuing the path of genuine Reconciliation, pursued the path of punitive retributions against those who lost the war. Unfortunately, as it was in the case of the defeated Germany that was neither pacified nor conciliated, nor was it permanently weakened, so do we find in the case of Biafra, that despite all the retributive measures against her people, Biafra and the Biafrans, have neither been pacified, nor conciliated, nor have they been permanently weakened. Unlike the Treaty of Versailles that exerted bloody pound of flesh on the side that lost the First World War, the victorious side in the Second World War padded their retributive actions with the Marshall Plan. And thus unlike the intended Carthagenian peace of the Versailles Treaty of 28 June 1919, the Marshall Plan brought a relatively permanent peace to Europe that withstood the shock waves of the cold war including the Cuban Missile crises. In pursuing the lessons of the retributive post-war treatment of the Biafrans, I would ask the leaders on the victorious side – When you took all their financial deposits in the banks and paid them only £20 (twenty pounds), what did you expect the result to be – pacification, conciliation or to have them permanently weakened? When you allowed massacre of unarmed soldiers and leaders even when they had declared their return to Nigeria, what did you expect? I mean when you murdered Prof. Kalu Ezera or when you killed unarmed Col Onwuatuegwu in cold blood, what did you expect? When you killed and also buried alive thousands of innocent civilians in Asaba, was that a circus show? I escaped being killed at the end of the war through the mysterious intervention of my college mate, Mr Nwogugbe from Asa in Abia State who was a member of the Nigerian battalion that overran my area on that fateful day of January 8, 1970. The solders had sent for me and when I arrived at Nkwo Mbaise their base, Nwoguegbe instantly recognised me and shouted Nkume! I responded Nwoguegbe! Despite being introduced to his commander, Captain Jibowu, the later took him to one corner, asking to be convinced why I should not be treated in accordance with the official instructions, namely to waste any such able-bodied young-man who may have been an actual or potential Biafra soldier. I was lucky. Nwoguegbe saved me, but several of my mates from my community were not. Cornellius Oguikpe, Michael Osuagwu, Efriam Chukwunoyerem, Echewodo Onwunali, all were murdered at the end of the war by the Nigerian soldiers. Yes, post-Biafra was not attended by any genuine efforts to seek reconciliation nor even to find out what led to the war. Rather, what we have witnessed is decades of vengeance, arrogance and conspiracy against Alaigbo and Ndigbo – Yes these are on record - Immediate post-war punitive massacre, Dismissal of some officers on the losing side, reduction in rank of others Dismissal of civil servants. Secret Execution of some officers (Col. Onwuatuegwu, Prof, Kalu Ezera) Abandoned property seizure of Igbo property. Punitive boundary adjustment. Closure of the Eastern Sea Port and Railway lines. Deliberate policy of encirclement of Alaigbo, inciting Igbo outside Igbo heartland to reject their Igbo identity. Deliberate policy of exclusion from the governance and power equation i Nigeria.. Deliberate policy of destroying Igbo businesses. Continued massacre, lynching of Igbos in many places in the North Insensitivity to the plight of the IDPs of Igbo extraction who were initially the major targets of Boko Harm bombings and killings. No serious effort at post-war reconstruction and reconciliation I strongly recommend to all those who care to understand how the Igbos view their predicament in the Federation to read the Petition of Ohanaeze ndigbo to the Human Rights Violations Investigating Committee of 1999. It is captioned The Violations of the Human and Civil Rights of Ndigbo in the Federation of Nigeria (1966-1999). President Obasanjo should speak to the nation now about why and how that initiative of his was aborted. A Truth and Reconciliation was a great idea, but just like all National Conference decisions meant to deal with the resolution of the injustices of the system. It was arrogantly dismissed and nothing happened. Biafra : A Collective Guilt Have we forgotten that Biafra was a collective guilt and that those who created the Nigerian Federation did so to satisfy their own agenda They designed a local a local agenda for the same purpose? Have we forgotten the cause of Biafra and the war? Have we ever come together to examine why Biafra? Obasanjo’s Truth Commission and the Justice Oputa Commission were arrogantly dismissed and nothing happened. Who was the aggressor in that war? Aborted Efforts to Solve the Nigerian Problem What about several efforts to sit down and dispassionately examine the fate of the Federation and how to heal the wounds of the past. Several aborted historical opportunities for peace and stability, or a genuine democratic system include - Ibadan Conference of Sept/Oct 1966 Aburi Accord. Abiola’s election that wuld have set a precedent. 1994-5 Constitutional Conference and the 1995 Draft Constitution, the best Constitutional Draft in the history of Nigeria. Conferences organised by Obasanjos regime. President Jonathan’s 2014 Conference. Current Ferocious opposition to restructuring. Laying the Foundations for Genuine Reconciliation – The Biafra Initiative The Birth of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) – A child of the post-war East Central State Youth Volunteer Services Corps (ECSYVSC) whose memo to General Gowon led to the establishment of the NYSC by the Federal Government. I led the delegation, as Chairman of the ECSYVSC, that delivered the Memoradum to the Federal Government on the eve of the first post-war independence anniversary, precisely on30th September, 1970. In response General Gowon had given Dr Ukpabi Asika’s Government £75,000 (Seventy-five thousand pounds) in appreciation of that historical initiative of the youth of Alaigbo. The great objective of that historical initiative as conceived by us, the youth of Alaigbo, was to forge a genuine instrument of national reconciliation and national integration. What has happened to the NYSC? Any credit to the initiators? Several attempts have been made by the chaps in the NYSC Foundation in Abuja to interview me in order to draw inspiration from the original mind that conceived the NYSC; each time they were discouraged from a follow-up. It was the same way that a former Governor had advised the Federal Government to create an institution to house the Biafra scientist. The answer was no!, because doing so would give credit to the Biafrans. The Road to Reconciliation. Not Restructuring but Renegotiation of the basis of the Nigerian Federation. Nigeria is a multi-national Federation. The task is to agree on the terms for a form of political union among these nations and mini-nations. Unless this is done, there would never be any stable Federation uniting all these peoples who are culturally, religiously and philosophically separate nations and mini-nations. Prof. Uzodinma Nwala President Alaigbo Development Foundation (ADF)