Nigeria’s Consistent Disregard for Equal Rights and the Case for Self-Determination of the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra)

Originally Published By Vanguard

The South-East Region of Nigeria, primarily occupied by the Igbo people, has long contended that Nigeria has suffered Nigeria’s disregard for equal rights and self-determination as outlined in international law, particularly the 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations. This violation has called into question Nigeria’s claim to indivisibility and territorial integrity, especially considering the persistent marginalisation of the Igbo people and other ethnic minorities within the South-East Region. According to this Declaration, a state’s territorial integrity is only valid if it possesses “a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed, or colour.”

Nigeria’s Non-Compliance with the 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations

Under the 1970 Declaration, sovereign states must adhere to the principle of equal rights and self-determination. This implies that a government must represent “the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed, or colour.” The Declaration is clear: “Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorising or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination.”

Nigeria’s governance structure, however, tells a different story. Despite the federal nature of the state, which theoretically allows for regional autonomy, the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) has been systematically marginalised. Igbo political participation is disproportionately low, economic exclusion is rampant, and the socio-cultural identity of the South-East has often been suppressed by central authorities. The introduction of Sharia law in 12 northern states, coupled with the refusal to consider regional autonomy for the South-East, demonstrates the imbalance in governance. This double standard points to a government that does not represent all its people equally.

In the 1970 Declaration, territorial integrity is protected only when the state in question adheres to the principles of equal rights. In the case of Nigeria, this condition is unmet. The systematic exclusion of the South-East from key political, economic, and social opportunities shows a government that fails to represent all its people. Therefore, Nigeria’s claim to territorial integrity, under these circumstances, is invalidated.

The Sharia Penal Code and Bakassi Peninsula: Double Standards in Nigeria’s Territorial Integrity

The introduction of the Sharia penal code in the Northern states is an example of how Nigeria’s territorial integrity has been fractured. By allowing 12 northern states to implement Sharia law, the Nigerian government has tacitly approved a form of regional autonomy for the North, yet it has consistently rejected similar aspirations from the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra). This double standard is an affront to the principles of equal rights and self-determination.

Additionally, the cession of the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon in 2008 further undermines Nigeria’s claim to indivisibility. This decision, made in compliance with an International Court of Justice ruling, shows that Nigeria’s territorial boundaries are not immutable. If Nigeria’s territorial integrity could be altered in one region, why then should the South-East Region be denied the right to self-determination, especially when its people have long faced political, economic, and social exclusion?

Secession and the Right to Self-Determination

The issue of secession is a contentious one under international law. While the right to self-determination is enshrined in various legal frameworks, conservative thinkers argue that it does not extend to secession, citing principles of territorial integrity and ‘uti possidetis juris’ —a doctrine that asserts that newly formed states should maintain the borders that existed before their independence. However, as seen in the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in the Kosovo case, international law does not prohibit a people from unilaterally declaring independence under certain conditions.

Judge Koroma, in his dissenting opinion in the Kosovo Advisory Opinion case, argued that ethnic or religious groups within a sovereign state do not have the right to secede merely by expressing a wish to do so. He cautioned that allowing such groups to declare independence outside the context of decolonisation would set a dangerous precedent. However, the unique circumstances of the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) bear significant similarities to post-colonial struggles. The region’s marginalisation, the historical injustices of the Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970), and the ongoing economic and political exclusion provide the basis for invoking the right to self-determination.

Exceptional Circumstances: The South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) Case

International jurisprudence has established that the right to external self-determination may arise in exceptional cases, such as when a people are denied meaningful participation in governance or face systematic discrimination. This is echoed in Katangese Peoples’ Congress v. Zaire , where the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights ruled against the Katangese people’s claim to external self-determination due to the absence of serious human rights violations and their right to participate in government. In the case of the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra), the argument for self-determination is stronger because the Igbo people have faced decades of systematic exclusion, political oppression, and economic deprivation. 

In Reference re Secession of Quebec, the Canadian Supreme Court concluded that if a state’s government represents all its people without discrimination and respects the principle of self-determination, its territorial integrity is safeguarded. However, if a government fails to fulfil these conditions, external self-determination may be justified. Nigeria has not demonstrated equal treatment of its citizens, and the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) has been denied the necessary means to participate in its own governance.

International Precedents and the Right to Secede

The examples of South Sudan, Kosovo, and East Timor demonstrate that international law recognises the right to external self-determination when a people are systematically marginalised and denied internal self-determination. In the case of Kosovo, the International Court of Justice found that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law, thereby setting a precedent for other movements seeking self-determination.

The South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) shares similar grievances. The Nigerian government’s response to legitimate demands for autonomy has been met with force, rather than constructive dialogue. Igbo-Biafra self-determination movements from the South-East region have been violently suppressed, and activists have been arbitrarily detained while terrorist groups like Boko Haram insurgents are recuited into the Nigerian armed forces. Massive shortchanging in the number of states (with only 5 states to the South-East and 6 and 7 states to other zones or regions); and consistent politcal exclusion and underrepresentation of the South-East in the National Assembly and in key appoints are entrenched and onging. This demonstrates that Nigeria has consistently refused to allow the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) meaningful political participation or regional autonomy, justifying their pursuit of external self-determination.

The South-East Region’s (Igbo-Biafra) Legitimate Claim

The South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) has a legitimate claim to self-determination, grounded in decades of systemic injustice, political exclusion, and economic marginalisation. Nigeria’s claim to indivisibility and territorial integrity is invalidated by its failure to adhere to the principles of equal rights and self-determination as outlined in the 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations. 

Nigeria’s continued failure to represent all its people equally, as evidenced by its selective application of regional autonomy in the North and the economic and political suppression of the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra), opens the door to the legitimate pursuit of self-determination by the Igbo people. The international community must recognise this pursuit as grounded in international law and engage with the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) in meaningful dialogue. This is not a call to dismantle Nigeria unjustifiably,unreasonably and just for the sake of division, but a demand for justice, equality, and the recognition of the right to self-determination for the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra).

In conclusion and in this context, Nigeria has failed to possess “a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed, or colour.” The case for self-determination for the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) is not only a legal right but also a moral imperative that the international community should acknowledge and support.

Uche Mefor is the Convenor of the Igbo-Biafra Nationalists and the Indigenous People of Igbo Nation for Self-Determination