Deflating The Lies, Misinformation Of David Hundeyin At 'African Stream'

Deflating The Lies, Misinformation Of David Hundeyin At 'African Stream'

It is a common tactic for beneficiaries of corrupt systems to fiercely defend its flawed constructs. Mr. David Hundeyin, has again commenced his sly but subtly antics to twist narratives. This time he has extended his misinformation gimmicks and may have deceptively convinced some Pan-Africanist online media outlets like the  "African Stream" to spread and purvey these false narratives and propaganda. 

Thus, it is critical to correct the false impressions being spread by Mr. Hundeyin or even the African Stream about the Biafra quest for self-determination, the IPOB movement and its leader spearheading it and their motives. 

First, Biafra does not represent a Zionist ideology. It was an ideology borne out of necessity for survival following acts of ethnically inspired mass extermination. Suffice to say, that over 75% of Biafrans, and more extensively the entire Southern Nigeria are Christians, forming the majority of the population. 

The Biafran ideology is not a recent phenomenon. Biafra existed for nearly three years (1967-70), before it was brutally starved into submission by the Nigerian federal government in early 1970.  And, it is on historical record that many nations including the United Kingdom, Israel, USSR, USA, some Sahel and Arab countries etc had in one way or another, overt or covert, participated in the political and interests-based conspiracy against Biafra. So, there was no religious motive behind the Biafra ideology from its rootstock, just survival and the collective of a deserted and abandoned people to thrive. 

Sadly, the question which the "African Stream" and their source, Mr. Hundeyin, failed or refused to address in the view of the global African audience was what sparked the Biafran quest for independence in the first instance or what spurred it roughly 50 years later, instead they choose to deceptively write off as "Zionist agenda" as it is more convenient to do and also to hinder people especially people of the global South to take historical lessons or research on what prompted the Nigeria-Biafra debacle which has endured till date. 

That detailed answer which they, consciously have failed to provide is what we shall painstakingly do in this piece. 

Now, Biafra’s pursuit for freedom and sovereignty from British-amalgamated Nigeria, emerged as the Nigeria state from inception in 1914 to post-independence thrived on the subjugation, marginalization, and exploitation of the people of the Eastern region which would later became Biafra, the height of it was the massacre, pogroms of 1966 which led to the inevitable declaration of Biafra, a year later after talks and diplomatic efforts salvage the situation failed.

The unlawful, vindictive massacre of innocent citizens from the East across the north and western region of Nigeria, the extrajudicial execution of their citizens who served diligently in the Nigerian army anchored on the fabricated narrative surrounding the first coup on January 1966 as an ethnically motivated coup, were all catalysts which led to the secession of the Republic of Biafra. 

Suffice to say, that the anniversary to honor the birth of Biafra happens to be in this month of May, on the 30th which was the actual date when the former military governor of the eastern region, Dim Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu declared independence after receiving unanimous mandate from the Eastern consultative assembly which hosted all the ethnic groups of the eastern region on 27th May 1967.

That declaration would later lead to what became the Biafra genocide, as the Nigeria government alongside its allies were not far behind the Biafrans, whom were in the most unmistakable terms, forced to leave in the first place. 

Thus, the Biafra Heroes day, is vital day designated to reflect on those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom—those who were killed, butchered, and starved into submission. 

Now, to contemporary times. The resurgence of the quest for Biafra self-determination and advent of pro-independence movement, like the Indigenous People of Biafra(IPOB), all boiled down to the historical injustices of how the Biafrans were treated, the promises of acceptance upon surrender which were never kept and the marginalization which followed for decades. That gave birth to the recent agitation for Biafra as quite rightly noted by Mr. Hundeyin. 

Secondly, Mr. Hundeyin acknowledged that there has been religious motivated violence against communities in the north and middlebelt, but he failed to reveal those behind this religious violence. He also failed to say that the Fulani herdsmen and other terrorist groups such as the Boko Haram has the backings from the Nigerian security and political apparatus itself, evidence of these are bound. There are ex-military, senior staffs, servicemen coming forward to give account of collusion and deep polarization of Nigeria security architecture. 

Thankfully, the security challenges posed by either ethnic or Islamic extremists or even both, is not a problem confined to Nigeria alone. It is a regional broader security challenges across the West African region particularly in the Sahel region, and the Sahelians especially the indigenous peoples in the AES are in a better position to corroborate or even independently tell the global African audience if there is an ethnic jihad interchangeably masqueraded as a religious one against indigenous populations across west Africa. 

Thirdly, the political ideology for Biafra under the IPOB movement is a peaceful one and has stayed so since inception, notwithstanding heavy extrajudicial crackdowns by the Nigerian state, acknowledged even by the most biased and prejudicial human rights institutions such as Amnesty International. 

The IPOB leader was arrested in 2015 for professing his rights to political self-determination and asking for a UN supervised referendum, he was detained for 2 years and granted bail, until he was designated for assassination by the Nigerian military, a plot which failed but over 28 innocent civilians were killed, luckily for Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, he escaped into exile. 

However, four years later the Nigerian government broke all known local and international laws to not only kidnap him, but to extraordinarily rendition to Nigeria from Kenya. An act that has attracted so much local and international condemnation. Mr. David Hundeyin won’t speak about that because it won’t favoure his lies. 

Nnamdi Kanu has been on trial and on many occasions either his release or his innocence has been ordered by the Nigerian judiciary itself, but the federal government has proven adamant to these rulings by competent courts and continue to incarcerate him. 

Mr Hundeyin failed to acknowledge these but instead choose to blindside the African audience with an insidiously clipped off an audio broadcast of the IPOB leader, made specifically to the Nigerian youths whom were being hunted and killed by their own police and military during the EndSARS protests, something relative to the Arab spring or even the most recent #RejectFinancialBill mass protests in Kenya. 

The intervention of global bodies or influential nations in times of crisis especially on humanitarian grounds maybe a downside but in some cases are necessary. If not, Mr. Hundeyin would not have participated in the research team which its findings allegedly led to the designation of Nigeria "as a country of particular concern" by the United States during president Trump first administration, a clause that only be invoked when there is an evident sign of religious repression. And, as all may recall were promising results though they were short-lived.

Nevertheless, while the outspoken or lobby activities of Mr Michael Rubin and his AEI institute are acceptable and applaudable especially on humanitarian grounds about the vices being faced by Christians in Nigeria either in the north, south or middlebelt, there is no political connection or corroboration of his stance about Biafra self-determination with the IPOB movement, let alone connecting him and Mr. Simon Ekpa whom has been certified of being a Nigerian state sponsored agent provocateur sent to bring chaos and poison the genuine quest for Biafra self-determination, to IPOB.  And as per the laws of Finland, he Simon Ekpa is being prosecuted for his crimes against the people of Eastern Nigeria. 

Make no mistakes, Mr. Simon Ekpa is no lieutenant of the IPOB leader, as Mr. Hundeyin claimed. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu though a revolutionary, is no violent criminal who have ordered or condoned any attack on innocent civilians. If not, he would have been convicted over his 10 years of legal tussle in the Nigerian judiciary facing of the federal government on alleged charges of treason and terrorism.

Mr. Hundeyin and the African/global audience who may have listened to his story and poised to believe it, should be advised that the resources in Nigeria, which Mr. Hundeyin dearly emphasizes upon, is in no other exploitative hands other than the United States and its allies consisting of the collective West. The resources of Nigeria which is the commonwealth of the people has never been used in favour of its rightful owners and that is particularly the Nigerian population squeaks in abject poverty and penury. 

And, that is also what the quest for Biafra self-determination is determined to change: A sovereignty to guarantee that the resources and potentials, human and mineral, within its soil and borders will be used for the socioeconomic advancements and development of its people. 

How Biafra or her people wishes to utilize these resources or who they conduct business with it, be it from the East, West, North or South is strictly her business as long as her national interests are not jeopardized, and extensively as long as her eternal commitments to true Pan-Africanisn, which has been demonstrated beyond doubts, are not compromised. 

Family Writers Press International.