Solicitor’s Address to Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) in Suit No FHC/OW/CS/192/2013- Client Care Letter - Emeka Emekesri, Esq. Solicitor for Indigenous People of Biafra To: All Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) In Suit No FHC/OW/CS/192/2013 In the Federal High Court Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria. 1. Introduction: The Case between Indigenous People of Biafra and Federal Republic of Nigeria & The Attorney-General of the Federation: (1) We write in our capacity as Solicitors for Indigenous People of Biafra in the above-named case. Pursuant to the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) under the Nigerian Legal System and in the discharge of our obligation to give our clients regular updates in their case, we have deemed it necessary at this stage of the proceedings to give a detailed report to our clients on the Biafra v Nigeria case. In view of the fact that our clients are a nation whose children are scattered all over the world, we request the Government of Indigenous People of Biafra under the command of the Supreme Council of Elders to disseminate this information to all the Biafrans in the world. We hereby give permission for the publication of this message in pamphlets to be given to all Indigenous People of Biafra in all parts of the world where they live. (2) We refer to our clients as Biafrans by indigenous identity. We write the word as BIAFRANS and not in inverted commas, “Biafrans”, because the Biafrans are still in existence. We have made it clear to the Nigerian Government that what Biafra lost after the war of 1967 – 1970 was their sovereignty and not their identity as a people. It is our opinion that the greatest mistake that Nigeria made was to have spared the remnants of the Biafrans alive. If Nigeria had annihilated Biafra just as Rome annihilated Carthage, there would not have been any Biafrans alive today to seek for the restoration of their ancient country. Now, the law protects the remnants of the Biafrans to exercise their right to self-determination and regain their sovereignty. Therefore, in this message, when we talk about Biafra, we refer to the remnants of the Indigenous People of Biafra as a Nation but not as a Sovereign State. They are Biafrans by indigenous identity but Nigerians by citizenship until they gain independence from Nigeria just as the people of Scotland are Scottish by indigenous identity but British by citizenship, and now seeking for independence from Britain. The Biafrans are a Nation but not a Nation-State at the moment. They were forced to become Nigerians against their will. The Biafrans lost their sovereignty to Nigeria which they now seek to regain by legal method. This is our argument in Court and we challenge the Nigerian lawyers to prove us wrong! (3) The Solicitor for Indigenous People of Biafra created the name “Indigenous People of Biafra” in 2011 which he published in his book in 2012 and protected it under Copyright Law and was designated as “Solicitor for Indigenous People of Biafra”. The body of all the Biafrans known as Indigenous People of Biafra was officially created in 2012 in Owerri as a non-legal entity under Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 to agitate for the Independence of Biafra by the Rule of Law. The acronym “IPOB” was created by Dr Dozie Ikedife in 2013 in his written address delivered on the Radio Biafra London which was then working under the Supreme Council of Elders before the Director of Radio Biafra was ostracised by the Elders. The Solicitor who created the concept and ideology defined Indigenous People of Biafra in Court as all the remnants of the Biafrans and their descendants who were not consumed in the war between Nigeria and Biafra 1967 – 1970 now inhabiting three contiguous regions namely, the South East, parts of the South-South and parts of the Middle Belt regions of Nigeria. The Office of Indigenous People of Biafra is located at 90 Wetheral Road, Owerri, Imo State, now renumbered as 92 Wetheral Road, where the Defendants and their Bailiffs serve the Biafrans with Court documents. The Solicitor served Legal Notices duly on the Nigerian Government in 2012 before the Signboard of the Office of Indigenous People of Biafra was mounted at Owerri, as shown in the photograph attached herewith. As a non-legal entity, the body, Indigenous People of Biafra, can only sue or be sued in a representative capacity. This was why they sued Nigeria in a representative capacity by Bilie Human Rights Initiative. 2. History of the Case: (1) The case was commenced in 2012 in the Federal High Court Owerri as Suit No FHC/OW/CS/102/2012 between Indigenous People of Biafra in a representative capacity as Claimants and the Federal Government of Nigeria & the Attorney-General of the Federation as the Defendants. The Defendants entered appearance very late and were ordered to pay costs of N5,000 to the Claimants. Their defence was a preliminary objection on mere technicalities because the words, “incorporated trustees of” were omitted from the name of Bilie Human Rights Initiative which represents the Claimants. We argued that it was a mere technical and typographical omission which was not the substance of the case before the Court but the Judge decided the preliminary objection in favour of the Defendants and struck out the case. (2) The amendments were made as required by law. The case was relisted and reconstituted as Suit No FHC/OW/CS/114/2013 and the proceedings continued in Court. The Defendants changed their Lawyers and hired a new Law Firm. They filed their defence to the suit and committed some blunders. The Biafran Lawyers raised a serious objection in court against the Nigerian defence. After almost two hours of legal arguments between the Biafran lawyers and the Nigerian lawyers, the Judge ruled in favour of the Biafrans and struck out the Nigerian defence. At that moment it meant that Nigeria had no more defence in Court. The case was adjourned and both parties went home to re-strategize before the next adjourned date. The Biafrans made some strategic manoeuvre and reinstituted the case as Suit No FHC/OW/CS/192/2013. The Nigerians changed their lawyers again and hired another Law Firm which has now filed a Preliminary Objection to defend Nigeria. The Biafrans have also replied to the defendants’ preliminary objection. The hearing of the case has been adjourned to 22 September 2015 in the Federal High Court Owerri. (3) On the issue of evidence and documentations, the Biafrans provided 67 exhibits to prove their case while Nigeria provided only one exhibit being the Petition written by Nnamdi Kanu’s group to the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) Abuja to revoke the Certificate of Bilie Human Rights Initiative and arrest Barr Emeka Emekesri for not disclosing to the CAC that Bilie was registered with the intention to fight for the secession of Biafra even though by legal method. The Petition dated 10th Sept 2014 was signed by Mazi Clifford Chukwuemeka Iroanya and Mazi Ikenna Alphonsus Nwanonenyi. The group is called “Indigenous People of Biafra-USA”. The title of their Petition is: “A CASE FOR REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF BILIE HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE (BHRI) AND THE PROSECUTION OF ITS TRUSTEES FOR PERJURY”. At Paragraph 2 (2) of the Petition, they stated as follows: “According to Section 2B of BHRI Constitution, the administrative headquarters of BHRI shall be in Owerri. Is it then a coincidence that BHRI physical office address is the same as the so- called Indigenous People of Biafra in Owerri who have dragged Nigeria to court (in conjunction with BHRI) in a legal battle for secession? It is therefore correct to surmise that BHRI was registered under false pretence and deceit, by a Nigerian Agency (CAC) and now BHRI is fighting the same country (for secession) for which the Agency is answerable to. The loyalty of the CAC to the Federal Government of Nigeria is under question here”. In this Petition, they actually acknowledged that there is an entity in Owerri called Indigenous People of Biafra who have dragged Nigeria to court in conjunction with BHRI. But their accusation is that the Solicitor deceived Nigeria and registered Bilie Human Rights Initiative which turned around to fight against Nigeria for secession of Biafra. They therefore want the Federal Government of Nigeria to revoke the Certificate of BHRI and arrest the Biafran Solicitor for perjury. (4) As the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) did not revoke the Certificate of BHRI, they wrote another letter dated 13th November 2014 with the caption, “Re: REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF BILIE HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE (BHRI)- THE NEED FOR CAC TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IS WATCHING AND WAITING”. This was when the Nigerian Lawyers filed a copy of the Petition in Court as their evidence to defend Nigeria. It was from the Defence filed by the Nigerian lawyers exhibiting the Petition that we knew for the first time that there was a Petition written by Nnamdi Kanu’s group against Bilie Human Rights Initiative. We discovered that the CAC had sent a copy of the Petition to us through a wrong address otherwise we would have responded immediately. (5) Nnamdi Kanu’s group had alleged that Barrister Emeka Emekesri deceived the Nigerian Government and registered Bilie without disclosing the intention to sue Nigeria on behalf of Biafra and questioned why the Corporate Affairs Commission should register an Organization that would turn around and fight against Nigeria on behalf of Biafra.