By  Emmanuel Ukaobasi

 

When the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, was allegedly abducted recently in Kenya and delivered to Nigeria, then detained by the Department of State Service, DSS, the British government reportedly asked the Nigeria government to explain where and how the separatist leader who holds a British citizenship was abducted.The Nigerian government has kept mum ever since, But the British government, however, said that Kanu who was travelling with a British passport was not arrested within its shores as controversies trailed the circumstances and where the IPOB leader was repatriated from.

Meanwhile the Head of Communications, British High Commission to Abuja, Dean Hurlock, confirmed that the Foreign Commonwealth Development Office stands ready to provide “Consular Assistance” to Kanu.

Now we are being told by Ifeanyi Ejiofor, the Lead Counsel of Kanu, that the British government collaborated with the Nigeria government in the abduction of Kanu. Ejiofor disclosed that; “The British High Commissioner in Nigeria nor any one representing or acting for them has visited our client – Mazi Nnamd iKanu where he is currently being held incommunicado. I am authoritatively confirming this position”.

He pointed out that unlike Kanu’s 2015 arrest when the commission was regularly visiting him while in detention, the British Commission is paying lip service to helping him this time around. The current lukewarm attitude of the British government to Kanu’s travails reflects the conflict and duplicity that have coloured the Anglo – Nigeria relations since independence. It was on this grounds that Hatz Ofoeze, a professor of political science at Abia State University, cautioned members of IPOB and other Biafra agitators not to be carried away when the British government promised to grant asylum to “persecuted” members of IPOB.

Doubting the sincerity of the promise,  Ofoeze affirmed that the promise could be a ploy to expose IPOB members and other pro-Biafra groups for persecution if they go for the offer. His words; “Britain can’t be trusted. They are the cause of Nigeria’s problem. I won’t even want any IPOB member to trust them. This could be a plan to expose them”. Besides it is generally believed that this offer could make other nations stronger or weaker than Britain to begin to interfere in Nigeria’s domestic affairs.

However many Nigerians began to have cause not to be suspicious of Britain during the independence era. When southern Nigeria demanded for independence, the North wanted it delayed. But when Britain gave independence to Nigeria, it delivered power to the North, the same region that was reluctant about independence, and not to the South that seriously asked for it. Since then Anglo-Nigerian relations has been focused on oil and the activities of Shell and British Petroleum. Nigeria under Olusegun Obasanjo’s government nationalized British Petroleum assets in 1979 in retaliation for British supply of oil to apartheid South Africa. Britain solidly backed apartheid South Africa no matter whose ox was gored.

Related News

It would always work for its self-serving interests. During the second Anglo-Boer war which lasted from 1899 – 1902 the British invented and operated concentration camps in South Africa. The term “concentration camp” became known during that time. The camps had originally been set up by the British Army as refugee camps for civilian families who had been forced to abandon their homes as a result of the war.

But when the British General, 1st BaronKitchener of Khartoum, as he then was, took command of the British forces in late 1900, he introduced a new tactics in order to break the guerrilla campaign. The influx of civilians grew as a result and subsequent epidemic of measles killed thousands. According to Historian, Thomas Pakenham, Lord Kitchener initiated plans to flush out guerrillas in a series of systematic drives, organized like a sporting shoot, with success defined by a weekly ‘bag’ of killed, captured and wounded, and swept the country bare of everything that could give sustenance to the guerrillas, including women and children. It was the clearance of civilians – uprooting a whole nation that would come to dominate the last phase of the war.

Nigerians experienced a variant of such scorch – earth policy when Prime Minister David Cameron floated an outrageous policy which would require “high-risk”Nigeria visitors to Britain to deposit a bond of €3000 before they would be granted visa. The bond would then be forfeited if the Nigerian overstated his/her visit. This discriminatory scheme also applied to Visa applicants from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

The meddlesomeness of Britain in Nigeria’s affairs showed up when Cameron chided Nigeria for passing a law against homosexuals under the Jonathan government. He threatened that it would make Nigeria ineligible for future British economic assistance.  While Cameron called Nigeria a “fantastically corrupt” country, he conveniently turned a blind eye to the fact that money stolen from Nigeria are readily received with smiles by British banks, and the government is not ever enthusiastic  about facilitating the return of the monies to Nigeria.

A former British Fraud Squad officer, Rowan Bisiworth Davies, reportedly said that many people in the city of London are convinced that if proper legislation is enforced to facilitate the recovery and return of stolen money, “it will be bad for UK PLC”.

Nigeria – British relations became stronger at the official level during the civil war when Britain assisted the Federal government against the secessionist state of Biafra. Nigeria is a prominent trade and investment partner for the UK in Africa. It is understandable why British government could sacrifice Kanu to consolidate its goals in Nigeria that has the world’s 10th largest proven oil reserves and the 9th largest gas reserves in the world, even when it has violated the most basic principles of law. Extraordinary rendition is one of the serious crimes states can commit.

Ukaobasi writes from Aba