Kano group asks Federal High Court to compel Igbo Referendun to ensure Biafra
By Musa Idris
In a curious twist of fate, a group based in Kano, Nigerian Northern chief city, has approached a Federal High Court demanding that the National Assembly organise a referendum to ensure the Igbo South East secede from Nigeria.
The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja will on November 01 this year hear the suit brought by Nastura Ashir Shariff, Balarabe Rufa’i, Abdul-Aziz Sulaiman and Aminu Adam. The presiding Judge is Justice Nyang Ekwo.
The plaintiffs are based in Kano. The motive of the group is unclear given the opposition to self determination by most, if not all elite and commons from the homestead of the plaintiffs.
The first to fourth respondents are the Attorney General of the Federation, Senate President, Speaker, House of Representatives and the National Assembly.
Their lawyer, S.G Idrees Esq, wants the Federal High court to make proclamation on whether the National Assembly has the legal right to order a referendum for Igbo South East and that the Igbos be allowed to leave Nigeria.
The Kano group claimed that the Igbos are seeking to secede through the use of violence and therefore wants the National Assembly to compel a referendum for the South East to aid the exit of the South East from Nigerian
A source told Irohinoodua that the legal twist may mean that if the Federal High court rejects the call for referendum, a demanded strange to the Nigerian constitution, it will weaken the Igbo demand for self determination.
In the originating summon, the plaintiffs averse that “whether considering the violent agitation for self-determination by the people of the South-eastern States of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as deposed to in the affidavit in support of the Originating Summons and the combined effect of the provisions of Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), and Articles 1, 2, 4, 14 and 20(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 2004, the 2th, 3rd and 4th Defendants are not under a legal obligation to provide a framework that will pave way for the self-determination of the South-eastern States so as to leave the geographical entity called Nigeria before any further step is taken to review the constitution?.”
Part of the demands of the plaintiffs are “A declaration that by the combined effect of the provisions of Section 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria ( as amended) and Articles 1,2, and 20(1) of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights ( Ratification and Enforcement) Act 2004, the 4th defendant is empowered to set in motion a framework for a referendum to allow the South-eastern states of Nigeria to decide on their bid for self-determination.
“A declaration that in view of the provisions of Articles 1,2,4, 14 and 20(1) of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights ( Ratification and Enforcement) Act 2004 , the 2nd and 3rd defendants have the power to call for a joint session of both Houses of the 4th defendant to deliberate on the agitation for self-determination by the South-eastern states of Nigeria.
“An order directing the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants to provide a framework that will pave way for the self-determination of the South-eastern so as to leave the geographical entity called Nigeria before any further step is taken to further amend the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“Such further or other orders as this Hon. Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.”