www.odogwublog.com brings you the address by the Solicitor of Biafra land who is also a Bishop of Rock the Life ………………
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 socalled
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. They sent copies of the Petition to the
Nigerian Lawyers and the Judge of the Federal High Court. We have attached a
copy of their Petition to this letter for your record. This was why the
Defendants tendered the Petition in Court as an exhibit in their defence. We
have replied to the Petition both to the Corporate Affairs Commission and to
the Court. We do not know their motive. Sometimes we wonder whether
Nnamdi Kanu and his group are working for the Defendants or whether there is
something else we are yet to understand about their intentions. Only God knows
the hearts of all men. Again, it is possible that he and his group are sincere but
sincerely wrong. A sincere person without knowledge and understanding may
be working sincerely in a wrong way. In the Bible, God says that his people are
destroyed for lack of knowledge. Sincerity of purpose is not enough.
Knowledge, wisdom and understanding are required in this struggle. A sincere
person without knowledge walking along the road where there is a pit will
sincerely fall into the pit! He will certainly fall into the pit with all his sincerity
because he lacks knowledge of the existence of the pit on the road! The Bible
says that there is a way that seems right unto a man but the end thereof are the
ways of death, Prov 16:25. From my Deliverance Ministry, I discovered that the
man referred to in Proverb 16:25 is often possessed with the demon of delusion
that makes him think that he is right always in all his ways and every other
person is wrong. Such a person needs deliverance in the Name of Jesus Christ.
(6) The group known as “Indigenous People of Biafra-USA” which wrote the
Petition signed by Mazi Clifford Iroanya and Mazi Ikenna Nwanonenyi said
that Bilie Human Rights Initiative did not obtain their consent before instituting
the case on behalf of Indigenous People of Biafra and therefore lacked the locus
standi to represent the Biafrans. The Nigerian lawyers jumped at it and thought
that the allegation of lack of locus standi could save them. We contacted the
Government of the State of California in the United States of America where
the group was registered and obtained their registration documents which we
filed in Court in our reply. It was discovered that the said American-based
organization “Indigenous People of Biafra-USA” was never in existence when
the Suit was instituted in 2012 and 2013. The “Indigenous People of Biafra-
USA” was registered in the State of California on 14th February 2014 as shown
in the California Secretary of State Business Registry. The legal effect is that an
organization that came into existence in America in 2014 is a corporate citizen
of America born in 2014 and cannot speak about the case in Nigeria that started
in 2012 when they were not yet born. Secondly, the American-based
organization which was not in existence when the case was instituted in 2012
and 2013 cannot complain that Bilie Human Rights Initiative did not obtain
their consent before filing a case for the Indigenous People of Biafra that
came into existence in Owerri in 2012.
(7) Their next allegation and report to the Nigerian Government was that the full
meaning of Bilie is Biafra Liberation in Exile but that the Solicitor coined the
word and told the Government that Bilie means “Stand Up” in Igbo Language.
All that Nnamdi Kanu and his followers want is to destroy Barrister Emeka
Emekesri and Bilie Human Rights Initiative by any means possible even if it
means destroying the Biafran Struggle itself. Unfortunately for Nnamdi Kanu
and his group, the Solicitor for Indigenous People of Biafra had laid a proper
foundation in 2011 before commencing the suit in the Federal High Court
Owerri in 2012. The Officers of Corporate Affairs Commission had carried out
an inquiry in 2011 to determine the meaning of the word before it was accepted
for registration. The Officer in the CAC who signed the Approval was an Igbo
woman. All the Igbo people in the Corporate Affairs Commission confirmed
that Bilie is a word in Igbo Language meaning “Stand Up” or “Arise”. The
Certificate of Approval of the Name issued by the Corporate Affairs
Commission clearly stated the meaning of the word as “Stand Up” in Igbo
Language.
(8) The argument that the Solicitor coined the name “Bilie” for the Biafra
Liberation in Exile is a porous argument on three grounds. Firstly, the word is a
slogan and not an acronym. The acronym for Biafra Liberation In Exile is
BLIE. When I was their Solicitor, I created the slogan “Bilie” as a clarion call.
The Government they set up in exile is called Biafra Government In Exile,
BGIE. I have never believed in any government in exile because a people
seeking for independence must have a de facto government on the ground in the
land they seek to emancipate. They must not operate from the exile. They must
engage with their host Government in a face-to-face encounter either in a
battlefield, or in a Courtroom or in the National Assembly debate. Secondly, a
word which is an acronym or a slogan can have many meanings. For instance,
the word, IMO, is a word in Igbo Language (Imo River) but also means
International Monetary Organization. The word, NDU, is an Igbo Word (Life)
but also means Niger Delta University. The word, UBA, is an Igbo Word
(Wealth) but also means United Bank for Africa. Even if the people in exile
adopt the slogan as an acronym for their name, it does not stop the word from
meaning “Stand Up” in Igbo Language. Thirdly, the meaning of the word
“Bilie” is not an issue before the Court. The issue in Court is self-determination
of Indigenous People of Biafra and not the meaning of words and acronyms.
(9) We do not have any issues with Nnamdi Kanu and his group. The Bible says
that two cannot walk together except their minds and spirits are in agreement,
Amos 3:3. There is a clear difference of ideologies between Nnamdi Kanu’s
group which is based abroad and the Indigenous People of Biafra led by His
Royal Majesty, His Lordship, The Hon Justice Eze Ozobu OFR, who are in
Court with Nigeria in Suit No FHC/OW/CS/192/2013 in Biafraland as
represented by Bilie Human Rights Initiative. We are a people under the
authority of the Supreme Council of Elders of Indigenous People of Biafra.
Most importantly, while we believe that Independence can be obtained by due
process of law, Nnamdi Kanu and his group believe that it is only by violence
that Independence can be achieved. In his broadcast on 14 June 2014 posted on
Facebook, he said as follows:
“The best antidote to lies and deceit is TRUTH. The best antidote to treachery
and sabotage is death. To all the amateur lawyers experimenting with Biafra
independence in Nigeria law court and their shameless deceit your end is near.
THIS IS THE PM EDITION OF RADIO BIAFRA LIVE BROADCAST OF 14
JUNE 2014 FROM ENUGU THE CAPITAL CITY OF BIAFRALAND. In this
episode: Three questions Bilie APC/BHRI will never answer and which they
must be pressured to provide answers are: (1) Why is Bilie APC/BHRI
continuing to deceive Biafrans with a court case when there is no recorded case
in history where a country got independence through legal method? Ask them to
name one country that got freedoms through the courts (2) Why is Bilie
APC/BHRI in court with a country that has expired given that Nigeria ended on
31st December 2013 (3) Why is Bilie APC/BHRI deceiving gullible Biafrans by
claiming they will drag the dead court case at Owerri High Court to the
International Court in The Hague when the lawyers in their team know fully
well that this is a lie? These liars did not tell the Biafrans that only countries
are allowed to refer matters to the International Court, not human rights
group….Say no to further deceit in the name of Biafra, join the revolution
today. Without violence there will be no Biafra. No country won her freedom
through legal method. This legal method rubbish is a fraud. No compromise, no
retreat, no surrender. Biafra or death”! Thus, he calls us armature lawyers and
threatens that our end is near. Barr Emeka Emekesri and Dr Dozie Ikedife have
received several death threats from Nnamdi Kanu’s followers threatening to
assassinate them. Instead of going after Boko Haram, they want to kill their
own brothers! In one of the times, I called Barr Emma Nmezu and notified him.
(10) Nnamdi Kanu and his group have attacked us relentlessly accusing us of
deception and fraud against the Biafrans. Yet, the Biafrans have not donated
any money to us or paid any money to Bilie Human Rights Initiative for this
case. All the expenses for this case in the Federal High Court Owerri from the
beginning in 2012 to the present day running into millions of naira are borne by
one man whose name we shall not mention. We are aware that many Biafrans
are donating money to Nnamdi Kanu for his media war against us but no
Biafran has donated any money to us. Despite the attacks on us, Bilie Human
Rights Initiative is still alive and has been recognised by the United Nations and
admitted into the Special Consultative Status of the United Nations ECOSOC
where it advocates for the Independence of Biafra in the international
community.
(11) Many people have called and asked questions regarding Mr Nnamdi Kanu and
his Radio Biafra Group and why they are always attacking Bilie Human Rights
Initiative and the Supreme Council of Elders. Many have also asked about his
claim that he was the founder and leader of Indigenous People of Biafra and
would like to hear from me. Well, I have always tried to avoid unnecessary
arguments as we are not in competition with anyone but it would be proper for
you to know how the name, Indigenous People of Biafra, came into existence
and entered into national and international consciousness. The Solicitor for
Indigenous People of Biafra created the name “Indigenous People of Biafra” in
2011, and created the email account, [email protected], to lay the
foundation for a legal action against Nigeria based on Cap 10, Laws of the
Federation of Nigeria 1990 which guarantees the Right of Indigenous Peoples
to Self-determination. He did not create the people but the name to describe
them and their email account. Indigenous People of Biafra have existed for
thousands of years but their name was not brought into national consciousness.
The Solicitor defined Indigenous People of Biafra in court as the remnants
that were not consumed in the war between Nigeria and Biafra, and quoted the
scriptures that the remnants that escaped shall yet take root downward and bear
fruits upward, Isaiah 37:31. He advocated for the use of Customary Law to
organize and govern the Indigenous People of Biafra based on the provisions of
the Nigerian Constitution so that we would not commit the offence of treason or
treasonable felony. The Leader of Indigenous People of Biafra is His Royal
Majesty, His Lordship, The Honourable Justice Eze Ozobu OFR, because we
are operating under the Customary Law as provided by the Nigerian
Constitution. The Honourable Justice Eze Ozobu is both a Royal Father and a
retired Chief Judge and Head of the Judiciary. We heard that Mr Nnamdi Kanu
has been made the Commander-In-Chief of the Republic of Biafra by his
followers who believe that he is the Leader of the Biafrans.
(12) I have observed that Mr Nnamdi Kanu has delved into Religion and Theology
as a methodology in his self-determination Struggle. It appears that he has run
out of ideas and therefore delved into religion. He has attacked the Churches
and Ministers of Jesus Christ. He has attacked the divinity of Jesus Christ just
like other Religious Leaders who describe Jesus Christ as one of the Grand
Masters or one of the Greatest Prophets of God. Many Occult Grand Masters
who have opposed Jesus Christ in the past have fallen at the feet of Jesus Christ
and yet Nnamdi Kanu is not an Occult Grand Master. We have listened to some
of his broadcasts where some of his followers boasted that they would destroy
the New Testament because it preaches forgiveness. Concerning the attacks on
the Person of The LORD Jesus Christ, I will not fight for Jesus Christ because
He will fight with Nnamdi Kanu by Himself. The same boys he recruited by
oaths and turned them against Jesus Christ will turn around against him. Let us
wait and watch how Nnamdi Kanu will end for insulting and attacking the
Personality and Name of Jesus Christ, the Name above all Names. Whether the
Name of Jesus Christ is written in Hebrew, Greek, Igbo, Hausa, or Yoruba, it is
the same name. In Hausa Language, he is called ISA while in Igbo he is called
YESU KRISTI. Our ancestors referred to the Great God as Chi Ukwu written as
Chukwu in Noun Formation. To emphasise His Covenant with Abraham, they
described Him as Chukwu Abhiama (God of Abraham). He understands all
languages. But concerning the attacks on Christianity, I will gladly join issues
with Nnamdi Kanu and his followers because Jesus Christ ordained me an
apostle of the New Testament.
(13) Nnamdi Kanu picked up the Name “Chukwu Abhiama” from Page 7 of my
book, “Biafra or Nigerian Presidency- What the Ibos Want”, published in 2012
and turned the name into something else. He began to advocate for a new
Religion that will replace Christianity. His followers chant a song: “Biafra is
our Religion. Chukwuabiama is our God. RBL is where we worship”. I do not
understand whether he is now engaged in a religious movement against Jesus
Christ and Christianity or in a national liberation struggle to free Biafra from
Nigeria. I would have ignored these attacks on Christianity because I do not
want us to mix religion with our self-determination struggle but considering my
calling as both a Lawyer and a Christian Minister and knowing that about 99%
of the Biafrans are Christians of various denominations, I would like to counter
Mr Nnamdi Kanu’s religious argument and clarify the issues of the divinity and
humanity of Jesus Christ. Please take notice that I do not attack persons but
issues and do not call people any bad names. As a Lawyer and Minister of God,
I only talk about issues and not persons. To this end, I have now attached the
manuscript of the Apologetics of Emeka Emekesri on Grace & Truth-
Understanding the Old and New Testaments- published in 2012 for the Biafrans
to read and understand. The book on Apologetics was published in Nigeria
three years ago but any Christian who wants to republish the manuscript is
hereby granted permission to do so and to distribute the book to all Biafrans
free of charge.
(14) We do not want to talk much about Mr Nnamdi Kanu and his group since they
are publicising the Biafra Struggle (whether with good intention or ulterior
motive, only God knows). What we can say is that he was registered as a
member of Bilie Human Rights Initiative on 30th June 2012 but was ostracised
by the Supreme Council of Elders of Indigenous People of Biafra on 12th May
2014 because of his disobedience, insubordination, insults and abuses to the
Elders. Before the Elders ostracised him, he was invited to the General Meeting
of Indigenous People of Biafra in the UK by a letter dated 5th Oct 2013 to give
explanations regarding his activities. The caption of the letter was:
“INVITATION BY INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA TO PROVIDE
ANSWERS AND EXPLANATIONS ON COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST
YOU”. The letter of invitation is attached herewith for your record. Instead of
coming to give answers to the complaints made against him by the Biafrans in
the UK, Nnamdi Kanu left us and started his own group. He took our name and
registered it as a Limited Liability Company called INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
OF BIAFRA LTD. Attached herewith are the Certificate of Incorporation of
Indigenous People of Biafra Ltd and the Company documents showing Nnamdi
Kanu and Uche Mefor as the shareholders. The Biafrans were angry that he had
turned them into a limited liability company having a share capital owned by
two men. He later re-registered it as Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)
limited by guarantee but removed the word “limited” by permission of the
Companies House. The problem is that the Indigenous People of Biafra under
him are still registered as a Company, not as a people or a nation. But the
Indigenous People of Biafra under HRM Eze Ozobu and the Supreme Council
of Elders are a nation in Biafraland. You may search on the internet Google for
the Company name “Indigenous People of Biafra Ltd” and see for yourself.
(15) It is possible that they decided to re-register “Indigenous People of Biafra
(IPOB)” as a Company Limited by Guarantee following our registration of the
“OFFICE OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA (BY BILIE HUMAN
RIGHTS INITIATIVE) as a Company Limited by Guarantee. Our argument is
that Indigenous People of Biafra are a nation with their homeland in Africa
and should not be registered as a Company in the Companies House in England
whether limited by shares or limited by guarantee. Of course, you can register
anything owned by the Biafrans as a Company such as their Radio Station, their
Office, College, Schools, Airlines, Hotels, etc. This was why we registered the
“Office of Indigenous People of Biafra” in the Companies House as a
Company limited by guarantee through which we communicate with the
Governments of the world but the Biafran people themselves are not registered
as a Company. What we registered is our Office in the United Kingdom- Office
of Indigenous People of Biafra, which serves as a diplomatic office for now.
We did not register the people of Biafra but their Office. If they had registered
their organization and media as “Radio Biafra Ltd”, or “Media Forum of
Indigenous People of Biafra Ltd”, etc, we would not have raised any objection
because the Radio Station or Media Forum is not the people of Biafra. We are a
nation and not a Company whether limited by shares or limited by guarantee.
(16) In the current Biafran Struggle for Independence, the Supreme Council of
Elders emphasises discipline, orderliness, decorum and accountability. The
Indigenous People of Biafra do not permit any person to insult and abuse their
Elders. We are restoring our traditional values. It is an abomination under our
Customary Law for a child to abuse and insult his elders. As Nnamdi Kanu and
his followers refused to respect and obey the Supreme Council of Elders, the
Elders ostracised him under our Customary Law. The Ostracism was signed by
Dr Dozie Ikedife OON, JP, on behalf of the Supreme Council of Elders of
Indigenous People of Biafra in accordance with our Customary Law.
3. Why the case was commenced in the Federal High Court Owerri
(1) Many Biafrans have questioned why the case was instituted in Nigeria instead
of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague as they do not believe
that we shall receive justice in the Nigerian Courts. It is necessary for us to
explain the rule of law for human rights litigation for the independence of a
people since most of the Biafrans asking these questions have no knowledge of
the law. In human rights litigation for the independence of a people, the law
requires the people to confront the government face to face in the same
jurisdiction from where they seek to be free. If they do not obtain justice, then
they have the right to appeal to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) known
as the World Court. In our situation, it means that the Biafrans must confront
Nigerian Government face to face within the Nigerian jurisdiction. The
principle was established in the Bible where Moses and the Elders of Israel
confronted Pharaoh the Government of Egypt face to face in Egypt. When
Pharaoh hardened his heart, they appealed to the Higher Power. There are three
ways to confront the Government face to face within Nigeria, namely:
(a) Military Method: By taking up arms and ammunition against Nigeria in
battle;
(b) Legislative Method: By presenting a Bill in the National Assembly for
Independence of the Biafrans and passing the Bill into law granting
Independence to Biafra; or by presenting a Bill in the National Assembly for
a Referendum and passing the Bill into law granting the people the right to
vote whether to remain in Nigeria or not.
(c) Judicial & Diplomatic Method: By taking Nigeria to Court at both national
and international levels and using the Judicial Power to declare and enforce
the right of self-determination as guaranteed by the Nigerian law and
International laws to which Nigeria is a signatory.
(2) We examined the three options thoroughly before embarking on this
Independence Struggle. The first option is the use of military power. Military
Method involves violence and destruction of lives and properties. The
International Community does not support war and violence anymore. It was
used in 1967 – 1970 when Biafra declared its independence and Nigeria
declared war against Biafra. It is necessary to emphasise that the Biafrans did
not declare war in 1967 but only declared their independence. It was Nigeria
that declared war against the Biafrans to force them back into Nigeria against
their will. The effect of that war has crippled both Nigeria and Biafra up to this
day. War is an ill-wind that blows no good to anyone. The Biafrans have
therefore rejected the option of war in the present dispensation.
(3) The second option is the use of Legislative Power. This would have been very
easy if the Biafrans had enough representatives and enough seats in the
National Assembly. Oddly enough, when we prepared the Bill for
Independence or Referendum to be passed in the National Assembly, there was
no Biafran activist in the National Assembly to present the Bill and move the
Motion. I was informed that the people who started the Biafran Independence
Struggle about 17 years ago said that the Biafrans were not Nigerians and
therefore should not be involved in the Nigerian politics and census. They did
not know the difference between the Indigenous Identity of a people and their
Citizenship or Nationality. Worse still, the people of the South East have only 5
States with 15 senatorial seats while the other geopolitical zones have 6 and 7
States with 18 and 21 senatorial seats respectively. The votes of 15 senators
from the South East will not be enough to push through the Biafra Bill of
Independence or Bill of Referendum in the National Assembly assuming that
the Senators decided to become pro-Biafra activists. We have heard about some
Biafrans calling for a Referendum. It is a very good method of achieving
Independence but how shall we get the Bill of Referendum passed in the
National Assembly?
(4) It appears that many people have not yet understood the extent of political
enslavement into which the Nigerian Government has put the Biafrans and their
neighbours. Let me explain it in simple terms: The National Assembly is made
up of the two Houses- The House of Representatives and the House of Senate.
There are six geopolitical zones in Nigeria- three zones in the North and three
zones in the South. Two zones in the South have 6 States each and one has 5
States being 17 States in the South. Two zones in the North have 6 States each
and one has 7 States being 19 States in the North. Every State has three
senatorial seats. Therefore the South will produce 51 senatorial seats while the
North will produce 57. Of all the members of the House of Representatives, 192
are from the North while 168 are from the entire South (South East, South-
South and South West combined). This means that in the National Assembly,
the North has 249 members while the whole South has 219 members.
Therefore, there is no way the South can push through any contentious Bill in
the National Assembly unless they can succeed in lobbying some members
from the North. How possible can the Bill of Referendum sail through? The
Scottish people had enough MPs in the House of Commons in England and
succeeded in passing the Bill of Referendum for Independence of Scotland,
even though they lost. Therefore we considered that the second option, though
very good, was not possible in the Biafran case even if all the senators and
lawmakers of the South East and South-South combined their votes in the
National Assembly. We do not discourage the group of Biafrans advocating for
a Referendum. It is possible that they have a secret to pass the Bill of
Referendum in the National Assembly. I must however advise that for a
Referendum to be binding on the Nigerian Government, it must satisfy the rule
of law that creates a social contract.
(5) The third option is the use of Judicial Power and Diplomacy. It involves human
rights litigation and diplomatic negotiations both at national and international
levels. The Nigerian Law, Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990,
provides for the right of self-determination. The Nigerian Judiciary has the
power to enforce the law because it is Nigerian law. At the international level, it
was by judicial power that Nigeria was compelled by the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) to give up their claim over Bakassi. Today, the Bakassi Peninsula
is no longer a Nigerian territory but Cameroonian. Recently, when President
Mohammadu Buhari visited Cameroon and had a meeting with the Nigerians
living in Cameroon, the question was thrown to him as to the status of Bakassi.
He emphasised that Nigeria would abide by the ruling of the International Court
of Justice. In his own words, he said as follows: “Since Nigeria allowed the
case to go to Court (ICJ), and we lost, we have to abide by it”. The truth is that
nobody and no government is above the law.
(6) The present case of Biafra v Nigeria in the Federal High Court Owerri may end
up in the International Court of Justice if the party that loses in the Nigerian
Court decides to go on appeal. By the judicial principle of stare decisis, the
section of the Nigerian Constitution which provides that Nigeria shall be
indivisible and indissoluble has been overridden by the Powers of the Judiciary
as it could not stop Bakassi from being removed from Nigeria. The Map of
Nigeria has been redrawn and reduced in size by reason of the removal of
Bakassi Peninsula from Nigeria. Just as Bakassi Peninsula was removed from
Nigeria by judicial power, it is our strong legal opinion that Biafra shall also be
removed from Nigeria by judicial power.
(7) It is necessary for us to address some legal issues that Mr Nnamdi Kanu raised
in his broadcast where he said that Nigeria expired on 31st December 2013 and
that Bilie is deceiving the Biafrans because only countries are allowed to refer
matters to the International Court of Justice. Regarding the issue of expiration
of Nigeria on 31st December 2013, the rule of evidence is that he who asserts
must prove his assertion. Mr Nnamdi Kanu did not provide the evidence that
Nigeria had expired. When a country expires, its currency will no longer be a
legal tender. But Mr Nnamdi Kanu and his followers are still using the Naira.
When a country expires, it loses its diplomatic immunity and its Passport will
no longer be honoured by the Immigration Authorities of other countries. Mr
Nnamdi Kanu and his followers do not use the Biafran Passport to travel to
other countries. Perhaps, they have the Passports of other countries if they do
not have Nigerian Passports. But certainly, they do not travel with Biafran
Passport because Biafra is not yet a sovereign country. The Immigration Rule is
that if you do not have the Nigerian Passport to prove your nationality, you will
need to provide the Passport of another sovereign country to prove nationality
and use it to apply for a visa to come into Nigeria. If Nigeria had expired on 31st
December 2013 as Mr Nnamdi Kanu and his group have said, why did they
write a Petition on 10th September 2014 asking the Government of the expired
country to revoke the Certificate of Bilie Human Rights Initiative? They wrote
a Petition to the expired country against Bilie thereby acknowledging that the
country has not expired! Who is deceiving who? Who is the liar now?
(8) Regarding the legal issue of capacity to refer a matter to the International Court
of Justice in The Hague, there is an exception to the general rule that only
sovereign nations are clothed with international legal personality to bring
actions in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). International Law permits
National Liberation Movements recognised by the UN and International Human
Rights Organizations to bring actions in the International Court of Justice on
behalf of the people they represent otherwise the oppressed people would not
have access to justice contrary to human rights law. It appears that Mr Nnamdi
Kanu and his followers know only the general law without knowing the
exceptions to the general law. It is an elementary principle of law that in every
law there must be an exception. A simple example is the traffic law that forbids
you to beat the traffic light or drive in the opposite direction but permits
emergency ambulance services to violate the rule because somebody’s life is at
stake. In the same way, there is an exception to the general rule of international
legal personality that permits national liberation movements and international
human rights organizations to bring actions in the ICJ.
(9) The rule of law on international legal personality allows national liberation
movements recognised by the UN to bring actions in the International Court of
Justice. The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is not a country but an
organization recognised by the UN with the right under international law to
bring action in the ICJ on behalf of the Palestinians just as Bilie Human Rights
Initiative has been recognised by the UN with power to represent the Biafrans.
By the rule of international law, if the Biafrans do not obtain justice within the
Nigerian jurisdiction, they have the right to appeal to the International Court of
Justice.
(10) Bilie Human Rights Initiative was constituted into a National Liberation
Movement for Indigenous People of Biafra by the Supreme Council of Elders
of Biafraland on 13th September 2012 pursuant to Sections B2 and B4 of the
Legal Instrument filed in the Federal High Court Owerri authorising it to
represent the Biafrans in the following words:
Section B2:
“The Supreme Council of Elders of Indigenous People of Biafra hereby
confers on Bilie Human Rights Initiative the power to institute all
actions whether civil or criminal and in both national and international
courts against the Federal Government of Nigeria and its agents for the
benefit of Indigenous People of Biafra to redress all wrongs occasioned
on them and assert their right to self-determination”.
Section B4:
“The Supreme Council of Elders of Indigenous People of Biafra hereby
authorizes Bilie Human Rights Initiative to act as a national liberation
movement for Indigenous People of Biafra under international law for
the purpose of instituting any actions in the International Court of
Justice or making representations in the United Nations for Indigenous
People of Biafra”.
(11) From the provisions of the Legal Instrument authorising BHRI to represent the
Biafrans, you can appreciate that a proper foundation was laid before the case
was instituted. The Supreme Council of Elders has not given these Powers to
any other organization to represent the Biafrans. The Supreme Council of
Elders of Indigenous People of Biafra is a legitimate government under
Customary Law in the Nigerian Legal System. It is called the Customary
Government of Indigenous People of Biafra headed by the Royal Father and
retired Chief Judge, His Royal Majesty & His Lordship, The Honourable
Justice Eze Ozobu OFR, the founding President-General of Ohaneze Ndigbo.
He is the Leader and Commander-In-Chief of Indigenous People of Biafra
under Customary Law. His Deputy is Dr Dozie Ikedife OON, JP, who was also
a former President-General of Ohaneze Ndigbo. The Secretary is the retired
Brig. Gen. Joe Achuzia, the former Commander of the Biafran Army who
brought the war to an end in 1970. He was also a former Secretary-General of
Ohaneze Ndigbo. The Public Relations Officer is also a Royal Father, His
Royal Majesty, Eze Iheanyi Nwokenna OFG, JP. Other members of the Council
are eminent statesmen of Biafraland with impeccable record of honesty in
leadership and human relations endued with wisdom and understanding. The
Council governs the remnants of the Biafrans under Customary Law just as the
indigenous people of the North are governed under the Sharia Law. Both the
Customary Law and Sharia Law are recognised and enshrined in the Nigerian
Constitution as part of the Nigerian law. The Government of Indigenous People
of Biafra is not a one-man show but a college of leadership by the Council of
Elders of Biafraland. The Council is still growing and expanding to embrace all
parts of Biafraland. The original members of the Council are those who were
not afraid to sign the documents in Court authorising us to sue Nigeria on
behalf of Biafra when other Elders of Biafraland were afraid to sign. The
Council is an Institution and not a one-man riot squad.
(12) Having been recognised by the United Nations and admitted into the Special
Consultative Status of the United Nations ECOSOC, Bilie Human Rights
Initiative has become an International Human Rights Organization and National
Liberation Movement with Legal Personality to bring action in the International
Court of Justice on behalf of the Biafrans. Currently, it is the only pro-Biafra
organization that has been admitted into the United Nations ECOSOC and
granted the Special Consultative Status to advocate for the rights of Indigenous
People of Biafra. The United Nations stated in its Letter of Admission to Bilie
Human Rights Initiative dated 23 July 2015 as follows: “Your status now
entitles you to designate official representatives to the United Nations
Headquarters in New York and the United Nations offices in Geneva and
Vienna. Your representatives will be able to register for and participate in
events, conferences and activities of the United Nations, and may designate
authorized representatives to sit as observers at public meetings of ECOSOC
and its subsidiary bodies, General Assembly, Human Rights Council and other
United Nations intergovernmental decision-making bodies”. We shall soon
designate our Official Representatives to the United Nations Headquarters in
New York and the United Nations Offices in Geneva and Vienna.
(13) With our Special Consultative Status in the United Nations ECOSOC, we now
have the right and privileges to sit down with the United Nations
Intergovernmental decision-making bodies to discuss issues and resolve
matters. This is where we shall play international politics and engage in
diplomacy. The Mission Statement of Bilie Human Rights Initiative as
contained on the UN website, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, is as
follows:
“BILIE HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE IS A HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION FOR
NATIONAL LIBERATION AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE BIAFRAN PEOPLE
WITH DE FACTO GOVERNMENT HEADQUARTERS IN BIAFRALAND FOR THE
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA HAVING THE MANDATE TO DEFEND,
UPHOLD, PROTECT AND ADVOCATE FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIGENOUS
PEOPLE OF BIAFRA AND GUIDE THEM TO SELF-DETERMINATION AND
INDEPENDENCE BY THE RULE OF LAW, BRINGING THE SITUATION IN
BIAFRA TO THE ATTENTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE ENTIRE
WORLD”.
(14) There are powers that rule this world. There are authorities that take decisions
in the government of the world. International diplomacy is required but it
appears that many pro-Biafra activists on the Streets do not understand this
message. The decision to grant a seat to Biafra in the United Nations will not be
made on the Streets of Aba and Onitsha or on the Facebook and Internet Radio
but in the United Nations. All the powerful countries of the world are interested
in what happens to Nigeria because of their economic interests. The Biafrans
must not be attacking the countries that will help them in the end. This is the
time for the Biafrans to make friends within Nigeria and outside Nigeria and
play proper national and international politics for the benefit of every country
including Nigeria. We have said that our intention is not to destroy Nigeria but
to be free from Nigeria. We have cited numerous examples of countries that got
independence without destroying their host countries. Starting from the Bible
history, Israel came out from Egypt without destroying Egypt. In modern times,
Eritrea came out from Ethiopia without destroying Ethiopia. Bangladesh and
Pakistan came out from India without destroying India. In 2011, South Sudan
came out from Sudan without destroying Sudan. In the same way, we the
Biafrans want to leave Nigeria without destroying Nigeria. If a Biafran wants to
maintain dual citizenship and retain his Nigerian citizenship, it is his
fundamental human right. There are many Nigerians that are also British and
American citizens.
(15) The Nigerian law provides for the right of self-determination to indigenous
peoples of the land enforceable by the Judiciary. The Biafran Lawyers obtained
evidence from the British Authorities showing the Treaties signed between the
British Government and the ancestors of Biafraland from 1884 – 1892 which
authorised the British people to enter upon our land for the purpose of trading
only. This evidence is before the Federal High Court Owerri. As at that time,
there was no Nigeria but there was Biafra. The ancient Map of Africa 1662
showed the three kingdoms in Africa from where Nigeria was carved out in
1914, namely, the Kingdom of Biafra in the East, the Kingdom of Benin in the
West and the Kingdom of Zamfara in the North.
(16) A typical provision at Page 24 of the Treaty Documents signed between the
ancestors of Biafraland and the British people placed an obligation on the
British Government in the following words: “To respect all native laws and
customs of the country, and not to interfere with the existing rights of any of the
natives without first obtaining their consent”. This provision was made because
the British people came for trade under the name of the Royal Niger Company
Ltd and our ancestors granted them license to trade in our land but not to
interfere with the government of our country then in existence. There was a
country called Biafra shown in the Ancient Map of Africa 1492 - 1843.
(17) We have proved from the Ancient Map of Africa that the Biafrans are some of
the indigenous peoples of the lands where Nigeria exists today. This fact of
history therefore engages Articles 19 – 24, Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of
Nigeria 1990, which guarantees the rights of indigenous peoples of the land to
self-determination. The Biafrans therefore decided to use the third option. For
this reason, we commenced the action in the Federal High Court Owerri and
embarked upon national and international diplomacy for the Independence of
Biafra.
(18) Apart from the rule of international law that a people seeking for independence
must commence the action from their domestic jurisdiction, it was also
necessary to commence the suit in Nigeria in order to create momentum and
synergy and gather the Biafrans together under the Customary Government so
that we could establish a de facto government under Customary Law on the
ground and satisfy the requirements of international law for recognition without
committing the offence of treason. The rule is that a people seeking for
independence must show that they are governable under a leadership structure
to avoid anarchy, lawlessness and bloodshed. Though the Customary
Government headed by the Supreme Council of Elders is not sovereign, it
provides an internal command structure to hold the people together should
anything happen to Nigeria. By the rule of customary law, it is the duty of the
elders of the land to gather their children together in times of crisis. Therefore,
Justice Eze Ozobu’s Customary Government is an alternative platform for the
Biafrans to fall back to in case of crisis but does not oppose the Nigerian
Government.
(19) The advantages of using legal method to achieve independence are many. If
independence is achieved by due process of law, all your investments and
properties in all parts of Nigeria will remain yours. The only difference is that
you will pay the taxes and rates to the government in whose jurisdiction your
properties are located. It is just like owning properties in London or America.
Again, everybody has the fundamental human rights to have dual citizenship. If
a Biafran wants to have dual citizenships, he can still retain his Nigerian
citizenship. It is your human rights to acquire multiple citizenships. I know
some Biafran activists who have dual and triple citizenships. Most importantly,
the use of legal method has attracted the Biafran elder statesmen into the
Biafran Struggle and given the Struggle much respect and legitimacy. It has
also attracted international diplomats to visit Biafraland and observe the court
proceedings in the Federal High Court and see our level of preparedness for
independence. The Biafran Struggle is no longer in the hands of charlatans and
fraudsters but now in the hands of Biafran intellectuals, strategists, royal fathers
and diplomats. Nevertheless, we emphasise that everybody is important in the
Struggle but every person must know and do what he is best talented to do. The
big men and small men are all important and needed in the Biafran Struggle.
The Intellectuals, Technocrats, Politicians and Businessmen are all important.
Our women, children and students are all important in the Struggle. But every
person should wear the shoes of his size. The level we have reached now in the
Biafran Struggle is as a result of using the experts in their areas of expertise.
4. What the Claimants are expected to do as the case progresses:
(1) We have noted that the hatred, persecution and attacks on the Biafrans are still
going on in various parts of Nigeria. At the moment, due to the rejection of
Biafra by many people in the South-South, the word “Biafrans” is now
synonymous with the word “Ibos” even though the Igbo People are not the
only Biafrans. Nevertheless, to the people of the North, all the Easterners are
the same whether they are from the South-East or South-South. We have also
noticed that despite the hatred, persecution and attacks on the Easterners in the
North and West, the Ibos especially have continued to invest heavily in the
regions where they are hated. Below is the photograph of a public rejection of
the Igbo People in Lagos State:
(2) In the North, the Ibos are killed and butchered like rams and goats without any
Government speaking on their behalf. This is the most important reason for the
restoration of the Biafran sovereignty. It is a sovereign country that can join
issues with another sovereign country in a diplomatic war over the lives of its
citizens. If a British citizen or American citizen is killed in Nigeria, the British
Government or American Government will take up the case for its citizen with
the Nigerian Government and ensure that justice prevails. From what we have
seen so far, we conclude that Nigeria does not regard the lives of the Biafrans.
The Northern Governments have stated unequivocally that theirs is a Shariah
Law Territory. The region is governed under Shariah Law and therefore any
person living in their territory must be willing to obey the Shariah Law or move
out of the region. However, the killing of the Ibos is not because they disobey
any Shariah Law but because of their enterprising spirit in commerce and
industries and the rapidity with which they acquire wealth in the land of their
sojourn by dint of hard work while the owners of the land become poorer in
comparison. Below is the photograph of the Ibo trader they recently macheted
to death like a ram:
(3) The attacks, hatred and persecution are perpetrated by both the elite and the
masses of the North and West. The Oba of Lagos insulted the Ibos and
threatened to drown them in the lagoon if they failed to vote for his candidate.
On receiving severe criticisms from the public, he turned around and said that
he was drunk when he made the threat! On Monday 20 April 2015, it was
reported all over the internet and shown on the Facebook page of Dr Abraham
Ariyo, Medical Doctor, American-based Cardiologist, a Yoruba man, calling
for the elimination of the Ibos as he alleged that God might have put a curse on
the Ibos as they are hated everywhere they go, using the massacre of the Ibos in
South Africa as an example. He said that the Yoruba would continue to “bus
them to Onitsha” referring to the deportation of the Ibos from Lagos to Onitsha
as done by the Governor of Lagos State.
Dr. Abraham Ariyo (A Yoruba Man)
(4) In the circumstance where the Ibos are still hated and persecuted in the North
and West despite their heavy investments in commerce and industries to
develop those regions, it becomes necessary to approach the issue of their
independence with wisdom and understanding. We have heard many arguments
as to whether the Ibos are better off in Nigeria or out of Nigeria. Joe Igbokwe is
one voice that has been advocating that the Ibos should remain within Nigeria.
We reject his argument as lacking merits. He is perhaps one of the few people
among the elite fearing that his properties and investments would be lost in the
North and West. All the points he raised in his argument including land mass
and intertribal marriages are so poor and porous that we consider it unnecessary
to join issues with him. We advise him to retain his Nigerian citizenship and
allow those who want the Biafran citizenship to be free from Nigeria. If he is a
Biafran by birth, born by Biafran parents, the law of citizenship by birth will
apply and nobody can remove his Biafranness from him even if he lives in a
foreign country.
(5) This case between Biafra and Nigeria appears to be the first of its kind where
the indigenous people of any country have applied the human rights law of selfdetermination
to their struggle for self-determination. Many people have
doubted the possibility of gaining independence from Nigeria by legal method
and have criticised and condemned Bilie Human Rights Initiative and the
Supreme Council of Elders. They said that the only language that Nigeria
understands is violence. They may be right but we have strong reasons to reject
violence. As stated in the Policy Statements and Orders of the Supreme Council
of Elders, Vol.1, 2014, Sections 5.4 and 5.5: “We are convinced that we are on
the right path in seeking for independence by due process of law. When the
great scientists of the past were trying to invent an artificial power to produce
light that would be different from the sunlight and moonlight, they were called
mad men and dreamers by sceptics because there had been no other source of
light apart from the sun and the moon at that time. About two hundred years
ago, who could have believed that a big iron house would fly on air or float on
the sea? But today, electric power has turned the night into day and made
possible the works that were impossible! The airplanes and steamships are
giant iron houses today flying on air and floating on the sea respectively.
Everything has a first time. We are very sure that Biafra shall gain
independence by due process of law without fighting another war. Yet the
Biafra case is not the first case of gaining independence without fighting a war.
Nigeria itself got independence from Britain without fighting a war. Scotland is
using the same method today.
5.5. At the moment in international politics, diplomacy and the rule of law
are the only acceptable methods of dispute resolution. These are the means
recognized by the international community which colonized or oppressed
peoples can resort to. We must emphasize that Biafrans are not afraid of war
but we shall not fight another war unless the war is justified and we have the
support of the international community. We the Indigenous People of Biafra are
presently engaged in a legal battle and battle of wits with the Federal Republic
of Nigeria and the Attorney General of the Federation by the advocacy of our
human rights organization called Bilie Human Rights Initiative which functions
as our Legal Department for now”.
(6) As this case progresses the Biafrans are expected to support their Customary
Government and ensure that there is unity among all the Biafrans. The
Organogram of the Government of Indigenous People of Biafra is allembracing.
It has enough room for everybody who wants to work whether as an
elder or youth in the Biafran Struggle. We need all Biafrans old and young,
businessmen and women, civil servants, politicians, serviceman and women in
the army or police, transporters, the academia, the religious leaders, the
diplomats and strategists. Just as the Scottish politicians debated in the House
of Commons for the Independence of Scotland, we need the Biafran politicians
in the Houses of Assembly and the National Assembly. We want the Biafran
Religious Leaders in Nigeria to start preparing the minds of the people from the
pulpits for their national deliverance just as Moses and the leaders of Israel
prepared the Israelites for their deliverance from Egypt.
(7) As Dr Dozie Ikedife, the Deputy Leader of the Biafrans, has said in the SUN
Newspaper, we emphasise that we have no business or relationship with any
person or group of persons who preaches violence, hatred, lawlessness,
incitement to anarchy, abuses and insults on dignitaries and governments in
disobedience to our customary laws and the laws of Nigeria. All the Indigenous
People of Biafra under the Supreme Council of Elders are required to be
respectful and law-abiding.
(8) This case is a rallying point for all the Biafrans. There are many issues to be
decided by the Court, not only the issue of self-determination. Therefore, all the
Biafrans are required to give financial and logistic supports in every way
necessary to achieve success. Up to this day, the Biafrans have not donated any
money to Bilie Human Rights Initiative towards the court case.
(9) The mainstream media houses in Nigeria are owned or controlled by the
Defendants. We do not expect the Defendants to use their media houses to
publicise the case between Biafra and Nigeria or to give credibility to the
Biafran Struggle. The Biafrans therefore need their own professionally-run
media houses which would operate by the rule of law and ethics of journalism
devoid of negative propaganda.
(10) All the Indigenous People of Biafra are required to attend their monthly
meetings as the case progresses in court. Their coordinators shall give them
regular updates. As Mr Nnamdi Kanu and his followers have registered the
name “Indigenous People of Biafra Ltd” and “Indigenous People of Biafra
(IPOB)” as a Limited Liability Company (Limited by Share and Limited by
Guarantee) to impersonate the Indigenous People of Biafra in the Federal
High Court Owerri, we now advise all Indigenous People of Biafra in the Court
under the authority of the Supreme Council of Elders to indicate on their
Signboards the Suit No FHC/OW/CS/192/2013 in their Meeting Venues, to
forestall impersonation so that the Nigerian Police and Security Personnel
would know the difference between the people known as Indigenous People of
Biafra who are in Court with Nigeria and the representatives of the Company in
England running the Radio Biafra London.
5. Conclusion:
We thank all Indigenous People of Biafra for their loyalty to the Customary
Government headed by the Supreme Council of Elders. This is a test as to whether the
Biafrans can govern themselves if granted independence or whether they would
destroy one another in civil wars in Biafraland. Many sceptics have said that Biafrans
cannot govern themselves because they are extremely republican and will not obey any
leader. We think the sceptics are wrong. At the moment, the Customary Government
of Indigenous People of Biafra is recognised and obeyed by the majority of the people.
We do not expect all the Biafrans to like the Customary Government of His Royal
Majesty & His Lordship, The Honourable Justice Eze Ozobu OFR, just as some
Nigerians do not like the Government of President Muhammadu Buhari, some
Americans do not like the Government of President Barak Obama and some Britons
do not like the Government of Prime Minister David Cameron. The most important
thing is that our Customary Government is a legitimate government under the Nigerian
Legal System capable of holding the people together as a government structure.
All Indigenous People of Biafra are therefore advised to obey the Customary
Government of Indigenous People of Biafra. For regular news and updates, please visit
the government website at www.ipobgovernmment.org/ipob and listen to the
broadcasts from the Voice of Biafra.
Yours faithfully,
Emeka Emekesri, Esq.
Solicitor for Indigenous People of Biafra
Indigenous People of Biafra in front of their Office in Owerri after a Court Session in 2012
1
Office of Indigenous
People of Biafra
Represented by Bilie Human Rights Initiative
(Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/192/2013: Federal High Court Owerri Imo State Nigeria)
(Customary Law Government by Council of Elders under the Constitution of Nigeria 1999)
Motto: Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium
Governing Council of
Indigenous People of
Biafra:
His Royal Majesty,
The Hon Justice Eze Ozobu,
OFR, Chairman
Dr. Dozie Ikedife
FRCOG, FICS, OON, JP
Deputy Chairman
Col. Joe Achuzia (Rtd)
Secretary
Members:
Chief Barr Sylvester Debe
Odumegwu Ojukwu
Prof. Chidi Osuagwu
HRH Eze Matthew Onweni
Nze Charles Umeokonkwo
Engr Amadi Innocent Obinna
Rt Rev Dr. Maglorious
Enyioha
Solicitor:
Emeka Emekesri, Esq.
Mekadolf Chambers
PUBLIC NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
ON NNAMDI KANU AND RADIO BIAFRA LONDON
Suit No FHC/OW/CS/192/2013: Bilie Human Rights Initiative
Representing Indigenous People of Biafra v. Federal Republic of Nigeria
and Attorney-General of the Federation:
The Defendants in the above-named Suit pending in the Federal High Court
Owerri Nigeria and the General Public and members of the International
Community are hereby put on notice that Mr Nnamdi Kanu and Radio Biafra
London and all indigenous people of Biafra who have followed him in rebellion
and disobedience to the Order and Directives of the Supreme Council of Elders
of Indigenous People of Biafra are not acting on behalf of (or by the authority
of) Bilie Human Rights Initiative and the Supreme Council of Elders of
Indigenous People of Biafra. The Official Radio Station for all indigenous
people of Biafra under the leadership of the Supreme Council of Elders is the
Voice of Biafra which can be found at www.biafranvoicemedia.com
We have heard a rumour that Mr Nnamdi Kanu and his followers have planned
to wage a war against the Defendants in the above-named suit and disrupt the
2015 elections for the purpose of obtaining independence for the Biafrans. In his
Facebook publication attached herewith, he threatened to assassinate some Ibos
and their families for supporting a Political Party he does not support. We, the
elders and leaders of all indigenous people of Biafra presently seeking
independence for Biafra by the rule of law under the legal representation and
advocacy of Bilie Human Rights Initiative, do hereby dissociate ourselves from
Mr Nnamdi Kanu and his followers and consequently put a disclaimer on Mr
Nnamdi Kanu and his Radio Biafra London which he uses to incite people to
violence. He and his followers are personally liable for any act they may commit
in violation of the rule of law.
We, the remnants of the people of Biafra under the leadership of the Supreme
Council of Elders of Indigenous People of Biafra, are law-abiding and are in no
way to be associated with any act of incitement to violence or lawlessness
whatsoever and howsoever.
HEADQUARTERS & REGISTERED OFFICE:
92 Wetheral Road, Owerri, Imo State Nigeria ¦ phone: (+234) 803-339-1126
Contact: [email protected]; [email protected]; ¦ www.biafranvoicemedia.com;
2
All enquiries regarding this Public Notice and Disclaimer should be directed to the
undersigned Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Council of Elders of Indigenous People
of Biafra.
Signed:
Dr Dozie Ikedife
FRCOG, FICS, OON, JP
Deputy Chairman
Tel: +2348037104017
For: Supreme Council of Elders of Indigenous People of Biafra
(GOVERNMENT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA UNDER CUSTOMARY LAW)
Dated this …….…. day of ……………. 2014
12th May
Radio Biafra Director Nnamdi Kanu
Threatens To Kill Families of Saboteurs
especially APC Supporters
NewsRescue- Nnamdi Kanu, the director of Radio Biafra, who as we reported yesterday,
was seen in a video harassing and insulting Hausa peasants under a bridge in Anambra,
has in a facebook post on the radio page, threatened to kill the families of ‘saboteurs,’
of his Biafra struggle. See: NewsRescue-VIDEO: Radio Biafra Harasses and Insults Hausa
Peasants In Anambra This extremely bizarre threat by the angry young boy, was
contained in an expansive statement where he spewed insults against prominent Igbo
leaders. The post is below:
Nnamdi Kenny Okwu Kanu wrote-DEALING WITH APC SUPPORTING SABOTEURS IN THE
BIAFRAN STRUGGLE: Every calamity that has ever befallen the Biafran people in the
expired Lugard contraption Flora Shaw named Nigger-area (Nigeria) were perpetrated
by those Igbos born outside Biafraland of dubious and questionable parentage. The list
is endless right from Dr. Azikiwe to the fool called Ukpabi Asika who I am certain is in
hell. Henceforth and in keeping with our oath, all saboteurs will be caught and executed.
There will be no mercy, no pardon, no forgiveness. All traitors must die and so too their
families. This nonsensical disease of Igbo saboteurs springing up all over the place in the
name of having a different opinion on Biafra liberation will no longer be tolerated
especially those who claim they are Biafrans but are supporting APC or APC candidates.
Perhaps all this is because Nnamdi Kanu is seeking cheap publicity.
Radio Biafra on facebook has 17,000 likes. Nnamdi also presents a call-in show in which
he holds conversation with like minds. In a particular radio show, he also offered vocal
threats to the United Kingdom and any other foreign nation that interferes with his
objective. He promised to bring ‘terror’ to their soil. Surprisingly Kanu offers these terror
threats out of the UK, which raises questions on the UK government’s position in this
campaign. It is worrisome that people like Abubakar Shekau, leader of Boko Haram and
Nnamdi Kanu, leader of Biafra Radio are confident and bold enough of their hate terror
messages, and broadcast these through the uncensored and readily available social
media. Fans of terrorists like this, who like their pages and patronize their messages is
another amazing, rather frightful thing. Killing saboteurs may be OK, but killing their
families! Seriously???
Read more: http://newsrescue.com/radio-biafra-director-nnamdi-kanu-promises-killfamilies-
saboteurs/#ixzz2sp3wHa1T
The Apologetics of Emeka Emekesri
on
Grace & Truth:
UNDERSTANDING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS
(Epistle written from London to all the Ibos in Israel, America, Asia,
Europe, Africa and Australia, in answer to Pastor Craig Lyons of Bet
Emet Ministries who wants Igbo Christians all over the world to return
to Jewish version of Christianity)
Emeka Adolf Chigozie Emekesri, Esq.
B.Sc (Hons), LL.B, B.L, LLM, ANIVS, RSV (Law & Estate)
B.Th, M.A, Ph.D (Ministerial Theology)
Barrister & Solicitor, Estate Surveyor & Valuer
Bishop of Christ The Rock Community
You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free, John 8: 32
© Emeka Adolf Chigozie Emekesri, 2012
All Rights Reserved
The Apologetics of Emeka Emekesri on Grace & Truth
(Epistle written from London to all the Ibos in Israel, America, Asia, Europe,
Africa and Australia, in answer to Pastor Craig Lyons of Bet Emet Ministries
who wants Igbo Christians all over the world to return to Jewish version of
Christianity)
My Beloved Brothers and Sisters,
Before I proceed with this letter, let me quote some contents of Pastor
Craig’s mail sent to the Ibos of the Ibo Benei Yisrael by Bro Moshe
Mbanefo on the issue under discussion:
"But, we must constantly remember that the words in our New
Testament were copied, transmitted, edited, translated, defined
canonized by people who had very specific agendas and beliefs;
namely to replace the Hebraic Messianic version of Christianity with a
purely separated Gentile mixed paganism. Let us never forget that the
Roman Catholic model for Protestantism today is a creation of
Romans and Gentiles and not of a Jew named Jesus! Let us never
forget that our churches of today, unless following a return to the true
religion of Jesus, are far off the track. Please consider joining God
and people like those of Bet Emet who have dedicated their lives to
rediscovering the Jewish Jesus so that we can look at his words and
the words of the Bible through Jewish eyes and truly then have 'the
mind of Christ' ".
I have been trying to avoid religious arguments in this Forum but it
seems that it is the will of God for us to discuss this issue. I perceive it
by the zeal with which Bro Moshe Mbanefo has joined issues with me
by having his Pastor's Message forwarded to us calling on all Ibos to
return to the Jewish version of Christianity. I also remember the words
of wisdom expressed by the Co-ordinator of Ibo-Benei Yisrael whose
opinion is that Ibos should be allowed to explore, explore and
explore knowledge, so that we can know where we have gone wrong
and start rebuilding. I appreciate the knowledge and training of Pastor
Craig M. Lyons, M. Div., of BET EMET MINISTRIES, and respect him
as a Christian Leader.
I consider it necessary to provide answers to Pastor Craig Lyons and his
flock, hoping that he is not a man who claims infallibility like the
Roman Catholic Pope, but a man who makes himself teachable and
willing to learn what he has not known. Humility is a difficult virtue and
only a Minister of God who is willing to submit to TRUTH can turn
around to his flock and say "Sorry, I was wrong in my former
teachings". As I speak now, I do not hold myself to have attained
perfection in knowledge and understanding but the little light I have
received from the Almighty is what I wish to share with those who are
reading this message. In his message Pastor Craig Lyons looked into the
origin of the "New Testament" and questioned the need for a "New
Testament" at all. Issue No. 2 of his message centred on "The reason
for a New Testament in the first place". This is the issue I have decided
to address, and I request every person to be patient with me and read
through:
UNDERSTANDING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS
“For where there is a testament, there must of necessity be the death of
the testator. For a testament becomes effective only when the testator
dies, otherwise it is of no effect at all while the testator is still alive”
(Heb. 9: 16-17)
In legal language, a Testament is called a WILL. The major
characteristic of a Will is that it is ambulatory, taking effect only upon
the death of the testator. It is a contractual document for the benefit of
the living whereby the dead speaks from the grave. While the testator is
still alive, he can change and amend his Will several times but
immediately he dies, his Last Will becomes binding on the living and
can never be amended by any addition or subtraction. In simple
language, it means that if your father makes a Will now, the Will cannot
take effect while your father is still alive, and he can in fact change his
Will by amendments but immediately he dies, his Last Will takes effect
and can never be changed or amended. This is a spiritual principle
which we also practise in Court today as all lawyers in this Forum will
attest to. A good understanding of this testamentary principle will enable
us to understand the Old and New Testaments, and why there was a
need for the New Testament in the first place. Being a contractual
document, a Testament can also be called a Covenant.
There was a typology of the death of the testator before the Old
Testament took effect. The Bible says that “Neither the First Testament
was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept
to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of calves and
of goats …and sprinkled it upon both the book and all the people and
said, ‘This is the blood of the Testament which God has made with you
this day’”(Heb. 9: 18 – 20, See Exod. 24: 8). It is instructive to observe
that the people of the Old Testament were sprinkled with the Blood of
the Old Testament. Every Christian knows that the Old Testament is a
shadow of the good things to come, Heb. 10: 1, and the animal sacrifices
were symbolic of the sacrifice of Christ who is described in the Bible as
the Lamb of God, John 1: 29.
What happened to the First Covenant made at Mount Sinai? The people
of God broke it. In fact, while Moses was still on the mountain, the
people had broken the No. 1 provision of the Law forbidding idolatry.
Through the intercession of Moses, God exercised his longsuffering and
mercy towards the Church of the Old Testament but promised by the
mouth of Jeremiah in about 650 B.C. saying, “Behold, the days shall
come when I will make a New Covenant with the house of Israel and
with the house of Judah, not according to the Covenant that I made with
their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand and brought them
out of the land of Egypt, which my Covenant they broke…”(Jer. 31: 31 -
34). By this revelation received through Jeremiah, it is certain that the
New Covenant promised by God in the 7th Century B.C. would be
different from the First Covenant, because God had said that it would
not be like the first.
As God was about to fulfil all the requirements of the Law of Moses so
as to bring the Dispensation of the Law to an end, He took the form of
man and was born in the likeness of man in fulfilment of the prophecy
of Isaiah who got the revelation in about 792 B.C. and said “For unto
us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be
upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful,
Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of
Peace.” (Isa. 9: 6). This prophecy is best interpreted with the Law of
Double Reference and Prophetic Perspective applicable to Isaiah’s own
natural son at the immediate physical level and to another “son” who
Isaiah said would be called The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father,
The Prince of Peace, to be fulfilled beyond the time of Isaiah. Of course,
Isaiah had a son after that prophecy but we never read in history that
Isaiah’s own son ever claimed to be The Mighty God, The Everlasting
Father and the Prince of Peace. So, those titles must be for a mysterious
Son! Who is The Mighty God and The Everlasting Father if not God
Himself? How then could The Mighty God and The Everlasting Father
be born as a Son? It is either we agree that it was possible or we classify
Isaiah as a false prophet. But those who know that all things are possible
with God can easily believe Isaiah’s prophecy without bothering their
minds on how God would work it out, being in heaven and being born
on earth at the same time. Is it impossible for the Omnipresent God to be
at several locations at the same time? Why do you call him Omnipresent
if you do not believe that he has the power to be at different places at the
same time in any form he wants? Indeed, it is the greatest mystery in the
universe how The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, took the form of
man and was born on earth, and yet was still in heaven all the time!
The Plan and Purpose of God for taking the form of man was to
establish the New Testament prophesied by Jeremiah, which could only
take effect upon the death of the testator. This New Testament is his
Last Will which upon his death can never be amended by any addition
or subtraction. This mysterious Son whose conception was miraculous
by the power of the Holy Spirit, and who was born by a virgin, and who
claimed equality with God is JESUS CHRIST who said, “Anybody who
sees me has seen The Father; I am in The Father and The Father is in
me; I and my Father are one” (John 14: 9 – 11, John 10: 30). This
claim of being equal with God was the reason the Jews hated him and
plotted for his death without knowing that it was a grand design of God
so that upon his death, the New Testament would take effect because a
Testament takes effect upon the death of the Testator. This is beyond the
understanding and finite mind of all creatures in the universe, for had
they known the grand plan of the Almighty, the princes of this world
would not have crucified the Lord of Glory! Before his death, he took
bread and broke it in symbolism saying that it was his body that would
be broken for us. He also took the cup of wine and made a symbolic
statement saying, “This is My Blood of the New Testament which is
shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26: 28). My Blood of the
New Testament which Jeremiah prophesied about in 650 B.C.! This is
the reason for the New Testament!
The greatest problem in understanding Christianity is that Jesus
Christ the Author and Finisher of the faith of Christians was not a
Christian in his life time but a Jew. While he was yet alive, the New
Testament did not take effect because a Testament takes effect upon
the death of the testator. He was born under the Law and lived under
the Law. He was circumcised on the 8th day according to the Law of
Moses and brought to the Temple on the 40th day for his presentation
when his mother was cleansed and purified with the blood of Pigeons
and turtle doves, Luke 2: 21 – 24. In his ministration, he told them that
he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil it. He commanded the
common people to obey the Law of Moses but not in hypocrisy like the
Scribes and Pharisees, Matt. 23: 1 – 4. Before his death, he did not
permit his disciples to preach the gospel to the gentiles but only to the
lost sheep of the house of Israel, Matt. 10: 5 – 6. When he healed a
leper, he commanded him to go and show himself to Caiaphas the Priest
and make the sacrifices which Moses commanded, Matt. 8: 4. As a
matter of fact, Jesus Christ was not a Priest on earth and was not even
qualified to be a Priest under the Old Testament because the Priesthood
was given to the tribe of Levi but he was from the tribe of Judah. He
rather ministered in the office of a prophet, teaching and preaching in
cities and villages of Israel, and The Father was bearing witness
confirming his Ministry with signs and wonders. He was in fact the last
prophet of Judaism!
But being the prophesied Messiah, Jesus had three office-anointing,
namely: Prophet, Priest and King, but each office in its own
dispensation. When it was time to seal the New Testament with his
blood, he made a sacrifice of himself on the Cross at Calvary and
thenceforth took over the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek and
abolished Judaism and Levitical Priesthood of Aaron. He gave the sign
of the abolition by tearing apart the Veil in the Temple of Judaism that
separated the worshippers from the Holy of Holies (The presence of
God). Before this time, nobody could look into the Holy of Holies and
remain alive except the High Priest once a year with the blood of
animal. But upon the sealing of the New Testament with the Blood of
Christ and the tearing apart of the Veil in the Temple, the eyes of
ordinary people saw the Holy of Holies, but nobody died because from
that moment God stopped dwelling in temples made by hand! Now, our
body is the temple of God and our heart is God’s altar. Any Man of God
who preaches the setting up of physical altars and temples in this
dispensation is blind to the truth. It is the human beings that constitute
the Church and not the Building. Jesus Christ is still operating in the
Office of Priesthood in heaven as at this moment making intercession
for us. But very soon, when his priestly intercession is over, he shall
come back to this earth, not as a prophet or priest but as the KING to
judge the living and the dead! Halleluiah!
While the Old Testament was for the benefit of the Jews only as gentiles
were separated from God, the New Testament is for the benefit of all
mankind, both Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2: 11 – 22). Therefore, when he
resurrected from the grave, Jesus Christ did not restrict the gospel to the
Jews as before but commanded his disciples to preach the gospel to ALL
NATIONS, Matt. 28: 19 -20. It is important to understand that the
gospel preached before his death was different from the gospel preached
after his death and resurrection. For before his death, his disciples
could not have preached the gospel of Blood Atonement and the Power
of His Resurrection, neither the gospel of Salvation by grace through
faith in Christ rather than by works of the Law, nor the glorious hope of
rapture, because they themselves had not understood it! These are some
of the things Jesus said he wanted to teach them but they could not
understand at that time, promising that the Holy Spirit would guide them
into the whole Truth, John 16: 12 – 15.
Since Jesus Christ in the days of his flesh commanded the people to
obey the Law of Moses, what was the purpose of the Law? The
scriptures say that the Law came so that sin would abound; so that man
would see himself exceedingly sinful and realize his inability to save
himself; so that the whole world would be guilty before God, Rom. 3:
19 – 20. With the guilt on his conscience and not able to free himself
from sin, man would desire grace and mercy and look unto God for
salvation. This desire for grace and mercy leads him to Christ. Thus, the
Bible says that the Law of Moses was our school master to bring us to
Christ, that we might be justified by faith, Gal. 3: 19-24. Except a sinner
is convicted by the preaching of the Law of Moses which he has broken,
he cannot desire grace and mercy so as to be saved by faith in Christ.
Any person who keeps the whole Law of Moses and yet offends in one
point has broken all the Laws and is guilty before God and worthy of
eternal destruction (James 2: 10), for The Law of Moses placed curse
upon any person who does not continue to do all things written in the
Law, (Deut. 27: 26; Gal. 3: 10). This means that the whole world is
guilty before God because all have sinned. Who can claim that he has
not offended in one point? The judgment and sentence for sin is eternal
destruction. Sacrifice of animals as sin offering cannot appease God, for
it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.
(Heb. 10: 4). Why then did God permit the Israelites to make animal
sacrifices under the Law of Moses? The sacrifices were a "covering"
for sin but did not "take away" sin until the penalty for sin was paid.
Upon the revelation of Jesus Christ, John The Baptist described him as
"The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world"
(John 1: 29).
The Old Testament saints had a forward-looking faith in Christ who was
symbolized in the animal sacrifice for sin, while the New Testament
saints have a backward-looking faith in Christ who was sacrificed upon
the Cross at Calvary. Both the Old and New Testament saints obtained
salvation by faith in Christ; the difference is that while those of the Old
Testament looked forward to the coming Christ as they made their
animal sacrifice for sin, the New Testament saints look backward to the
Christ who was sacrificed on the Cross at Calvary, who died and was
buried, and who rose from the dead bodily after three days and
three nights. The Bible says that the sacrifices under the Law of Moses
were symbolic and shadows of the real sacrifice. Now that God has
provided for Himself the Lamb for Sacrifice, and has sacrificed His Son
for our sins, there is no more sacrifice which any person can make for
sin. But any person who rejects the sacrifice which God has made for
the sin of mankind shall pay with his own life in eternal destruction. The
Law of Moses came so that the whole world would be guilty, for where
there is no law, there will be no offence. The Law (which the Jews call
Torah) was written by God Himself, with His fingers upon the tables of
stones. It is God's Law with provisions for punishment against
offenders. The principle of criminal law is that no person should be tried
or condemned for any offence that is not written in a Statute. All
lawyers know this truth. God himself established this principle of
criminal justice which we practise today and that was why he wrote the
Law with his fingers on tables of stones. The Law came by Moses to
show us our guilt and unworthiness before God but Grace and Truth
came by Jesus Christ to show us the way of redemption from the
consequences of sin, John 1: 17.
There was an incident that happened in the wilderness which Jesus
Christ referred to while he was teaching along the Streets of Israel. His
statement was recorded in John 3: 14 - 15, as follows: "And as Moses
lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be
lifted up; that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have
eternal life". He was talking about the brazen serpent that Moses
moulded and placed on top of a high pole. To understand this statement,
we must first understand what happened in the wilderness that made
Moses lift up the brazen serpent.
The Israelites sinned against God and He sent serpents to bite them unto
death, Numbers 21: 6 - 9. Many of our brethren died in the wilderness
because of their sin. When our brethren prayed asking God to remove
the snakebites and death, He refused to remove the snakes but gave
them a solution and antidote for snakebite and death; that whosoever
looked upon the brazen serpent lifted up on a high pole would not die
but live. Let me emphasize that SIN is still in the world today. Sin is in
the world and shall remain in the world where Christians dwell. The
major problems with mankind today is not Sin but Lack of Knowledge
because God has not removed sin from this world but has provided a
solution and antidote for sin and eternal death.
The world has been given an antidote for SIN, medicine that cures
the bite of sin. Today, our own snakebite is Sin and the devils are the
serpents in our own wilderness. The devils are still biting many people
with sin unto death. Just as Moses lifted up the brazen serpent in the
wilderness as antidote that cured snakebites on the Israelites, God
Almighty has lifted up Jesus Christ for us to look unto for healing from
our own snakebites (John 3: 14-16; Phil. 2: 9-11). Strictly speaking, a
Christian and an Unbeliever may fall into the same kind of sin, but the
Christian obtains healing and forgiveness because he knows the source
of spiritual healing and the principles of restoration while the Unbeliever
perishes for lack of knowledge. Two criminals were hanging on the
Cross with Jesus Christ at the same time. One of them accepted Jesus
Christ and was saved immediately while the other rejected Christ. This
is the grace which God has offered to the whole world, but many are
perishing for not accepting grace. In Law, we call it the "Prerogative of
Mercy" where the Governor or President of the Nation pardons a
condemned criminal by exercising the power of sovereignty. God is the
most qualified Sovereign to grant prerogative of mercy because He
Himself provided The Lamb as sacrifice to pay the penalty for the
offence which the sinner has committed, and it is against the law of
double jeopardy to effect punishment twice for the same offence.
The problem with many people is their unwillingness to accept
substitution and representation, and yet they practise the Law of
Substitution, Subrogation and Representation every day. Which debtor
will not be happy to hear that somebody has paid the debt that has been
keeping him depressed, worried and sleepless? Which offender brought
to Court will not be relieved to see somebody standing up to represent
him in Court for his defence? Who will not be happy to hear that the
Insurance Company has taken over the losses that he was liable to pay
for? If men of the world practise the law of substitution, subrogation and
representation, why do they find it difficult to accept the sacrifice Jesus
Christ made for their Sins? Therefore, whosoever accepts Jesus Christ as
his LORD and SAVIOUR shall never be condemned because Jesus
Christ is the Substitute and Representative who has paid the penalty for
the Sin of the whole world. It is clearly true that mercy granted to a
condemned criminal who never expected mercy seems unreal. Grace is
an unmerited favour. Salvation by faith in Jesus Christ seems so simple
that many reject it. Yet, the world has no other solution for the eternal
consequences of Sin. No prophet that has ever lived on this earth
claimed to have power to forgive sins except Jesus Christ!
Those who reject grace do so by quoting the natural law of "sowing and
reaping" which states that whatever a man sows that shall he also reap.
Surely, this is a natural law which makes a sinner to receive the wages
of sin and a righteous man to receive the wages of righteousness.
Unfortunately, many people have not understood this natural law. Why
do innocent people sometimes suffer for what they did not do? God says
that His people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, (Hos. 4: 6). Natural
laws are superseded by supernatural laws. All lawyers and spiritual
leaders know that laws are in a hierarchy and higher laws supersede
lower laws. Examples are the Federal Laws superseding State Laws,
Law of Aerodynamics superseding the Law of Gravity making an object
to go up and up into space without falling, etc. It was by supernatural
law that God made the iron axe to float upon water in the days of Elijah,
superseding the natural Law of Density, 2 Kings 6: 5-7. The
supernatural law that supersedes the Law of Sowing and Reaping is The
Law of Grace whereby God says, "I will have mercy on whom I will
have mercy; and I will have compassion on whom I will have
compassion. Therefore, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God that showeth mercy" (Exodus 33: 19; Rom. 9: 15-
18).
Certainly, a man can sow without reaping and can reap where he has not
sown. He may plant his yam or cassava and invest millions of dollars in
his business and die without reaping the fruits of his labour, and another
man who did not labour with him reaps the fruits! He may sow his crops
and termites eat them up. I know of a man who won the freest and
fairest election in Nigeria but did not sit on that SEAT OF POWER for
one hour and in fact died for winning that election while his kinsman
who never laboured for it was given the SEAT OF POWER to rule
Nigeria even though he was not the best qualified candidate. Though
this is a physical example, it is applicable to spiritual things. By the Law
of Grace, God forgives sins and grants favour to those who deserve no
favour. By this Law of Grace, a man favoured by God is helped by God
despite his weaknesses. By this Law of Grace, a sinner who deserves
eternal damnation is granted mercy because he has accepted the
sacrifice which God has provided as the penalty for the sins of the
whole world. Surely, every sin must be paid for, and God has paid for
the sin of mankind by sacrificing His Son, Jesus Christ, as atonement for
our sin. Whoever rejects God's Grace in the Blood of Atonement shall
be destroyed in eternity. The Blood of The New Testament has no
substitute. The blood of animals in the Old Testament Religion could
not take away sins. It is by the Blood of Jesus Christ that we are
reconciled to God. It is in the Name of Jesus Christ that we can
approach the Father. "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no
other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”
(Acts 4: 12) This is the reason for the New Testament!
Pastor Craig advises Igbo Christians to return to "the Hebraic Messianic
version of Christianity...rediscovering the Jewish Jesus so that we can
look at his words and the words of the Bible through Jewish eyes..."
This issue was resolved in the First Century A.D., when the Hebrew
Christians who were zealous for the Law of Moses insisted that
Christians all over the world should be compelled to be circumcised and
keep the Law of Moses. The matter was settled by the Council of
Christian Elders in Jerusalem and recorded in Acts 15: 1 - 29 and we
cannot reopen the case now. It is a settled matter caught under the rule
of Estoppel Per Rem Judicatam which prohibits settled matters from
being reopened in civil disputes. I will however explain the difference
between a Hebrew and a Jew since many people are confusing the two.
There is a difference between being called a Jew and being called an
Hebrew. Most Ibos are Hebrew Christians and not Jews unless they
decide to convert to Judaism. It has been proved by eminent
intellectuals and Professors such as Professor Alaezi of Abia State
University, Professor Uche Ikeanyibe, Dr. Charles Ujah, Dr. Emmanuel
Ononuju, Barr. Remy Ilona and other Igbo Researchers that the original
word “Ibrit” and its English equivalent “Hebrews” were corrupted and
mispronounced variously as “Iburus”, “Heebros”, “Heebos”, “Eboes”,
and “Ibos”. But from our research findings the word “Igbo” was
originally a derogatory ancient Sudanese word meaning "People of the
Forest" which was a generic name used to describe the inhabitants of
the tropical rainforest region of West Africa where our forefathers
migrated to and settled. The name is still surviving in Yorubaland, e.g.,
Ijebu-Igbo, Igbo-Mina, Igbo-Elewu and others.
The ancient people of the forest consisted of various tribes with different
languages among whom the Heebos or Eboes settled. It is interesting to
note that the definition of Igbo People as given by the Milon Hebrew
Dictionary is: “Igbo people, also referred to as the Ibo(e), Ebo(e),
Eboans or Heebo are an ethnic group living chiefly in
Southeastern Nigeria. They speak Igbo, which includes various Igboid
languages and dialects; today, a majority of them
speak English alongside Igbo as a result of British colonialism. Igbo
people are one of the largest and most influential ethnic groups in
Nigeria.” This definition came from Hebrew Dictionary. The mixture of
ancient HEBREW language with the languages of the various tribes of
the people of the forest described as Igboid languages produced the
IGBO Language which we speak today as our forefathers assimilated
the peoples and adapted to their languages. Since Language is an
element of culture that is very dynamic, it is expected that the Igbo
Language will change from generation to generation. In the days of
Jesus Christ in flesh, the Hebrew Language mixed up with Greek, Latin,
Syriac and the Chaldee to produce a Semitic Language called Aramaic
which Jesus Christ Himself spoke. In fact, the Hebrew spoken today in
Israel is different from the Hebrew spoken by Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, just as the English spoken today in England is different from the
English Language spoken in the days of William Shakespeare and King
James of England.
Language alone is not the conclusive evidence of the identity of a
people. Customs and Traditions are the essential ancient landmarks of
ethnic identity, especially if documented in writing to avoid
adulteration. Therefore, the Heebos who settled in the tropical rainforest
region of West Africa assimilated the aborigines and became one with
them but holding and practising the Law of Moses. Some of the Torah
customs which the Ibos still practise today are circumcision of the male
child on the 8th day; separating women in menstrual periods (oge nso
nwanyi); practising the igbankpe di called shiva in Hebrew whereby a
widow stays indoors weeping for her late husband for 8 days (the four
small market days and the four big market days of Iboland); abstaining
from eating unclean animals; not eating meat unless the blood is drained
out and covered with sand; not eating food without first washing their
hands; day of atonement to commence the new year of the Igbo calendar
called Yom Kippur in Hebrew and Emume Ikeji or Ikeji-aro in Igbo
Language which is preceded by a period of fasting called unwu aja;
washing their hands and their faces when they wake up every morning
called Ikwo Aka Ututu before putting any food in their mouths; purifying
themselves outside the gate if they touch dead bodies; practising the
kinsman-redeemer called ikuchi nwanyi in Igbo language whereby a
man inherits the widow of his late brother to raise up children who
would continue the name and lineage of the late brother so that the dead
man’s name would not be forgotten. This is the concept of Ahamefule,
Amaefule and Amaechina as shown by the story of Ruth in the Bible.
We practised these Torah customs until the coming of Christianity.
Though Christianity has influenced the customs of the Ibos, we still
practise the Torah customs that are not in conflict with Christianity such
as circumcision on the 8th day, abstaining from eating unclean things,
separating women in menstrual periods, etc, not for the sake of eternal
life but as a matter of culture. The Torah is the foundation of the Belief
System of the Ibos called Omenani, Omenala or Omenana in Igbo
Language. This Igbo word, Omenani, was derived from Emuna Ani,
Emuna Ana and Emuna Ala. Emuna is an Hebrew word meaning Belief.
Ani is an Hebrew word meaning perpetual, everlasting or unending. Ana
is an Aramaic word (Pigeon Hebrew) often used in the plural Anhna
meaning “we”, “us” or “our”. Ala is a corrupted Aramaic word Ara
meaning Land. Up to this day, many people in some parts of Iboland
pronounce “L” in place of “R” in some words. Therefore Emuna Ani or
Emuna Ala or Emuna Ana is the perpetual belief system, tradition,
culture, norms and values of the Ibos from generation to generation
which have crystallized into the customary law of the land now called
Omenani, Omenala, Omenana, or Omeneli depending on the Igbo
dialect. The Torah otherwise called the Pentateuch is the Omenani of the
Ibos (Emuna Ani of the Hebrews) although many strange practices have
crept into the customs and traditions of the Ibos which were not
originally part of the Omenani. These strange practices crept into the
Omenani because men who knew the truth did not resist those
obnoxious and repugnant practices borrowed from the ancient peoples
of the land. The Ibos have a warning adage that when an evil practice is
condoned for a year it becomes part of Omenala! This is why we must
not allow evil before it crystallizes into a tradition.
The fact that Ibos have been proved to be natural descendants of the
Jews does not mean that we should go back to Judaism and the law of
sin and death. If the Old Testament was able to save humanity from the
consequences of sin, there would have been no need for God to establish
the New Testament. There are many Hebrews today in Israel who are
Christians and not Jews. Therefore, Igbo people should not be forced to
convert to Judaism before the Israeli Government would accept them.
The Abrahamic Covenant for the "Seed of Promise" came from the
Patriarchs, thousands of years before the Covenant at Mount Sinai
where Moses received the Law and established the religion called
Judaism. The Abrahamic Covenant was sealed with the circumcision
mark. The Patriarchal worship practised by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
was not Judaism, for it was only in the days of Moses upon the
establishment of the First Testament that the Office of Priesthood was
created and given to the tribe of Levi. The High Priest was required to
enter the Holy of Holies with the blood of animals once a year to
perform his priestly duties. The Temple was destroyed and rebuilt again
and again. The High Priest and the Levitical priests continued from
generation to generation ministering in the Temple even after the New
Testament had been sealed on the Cross of Calvary. The Jews did not
understand what God was saying but continued animal sacrifices in the
Temple until the Temple was destroyed finally in 70 A.D. by General
Titus of Rome in fulfilment of the prophecy of Jesus
Christ. Nevertheless, another Temple shall be built again to fulfil the
prophecy of the last days as uttered by Daniel the Prophet.
But before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., as I have said
already, the Holy of Holies was exposed upon the death of Jesus Christ
on the Cross at Calvary when the thick veil separating the Holy of
Holies from the sanctuary was torn into two from above. It is
unfortunate that many religious leaders of those days did not understand
what God was saying and what God was doing. Only a few
people understood that God was fulfilling the promise He made through
Jeremiah 31:31 - 34, that He would establish a New Covenant. This
New Covenant was sealed and established by God with the Blood of
Jesus Christ, Matthew 26: 28, while the First Testament was sealed and
established with the blood of animals, Exodus 24: 8. This is what we
call the New Covenant or the New Testament. Where there is a New
Contract, the First Contract definitely becomes old. God promised to
make a New Covenant and has kept His Promise. Why are Pastor Craig
and his flock of Bet Emet Ministries against God's New Covenant?
Since Circumcision has no part to play in deciding the eternal destiny of
man, why do Ibos circumcise their male children on the 8th day? We do
so, not to gain salvation, but because circumcision is a custom
established by God for our forefathers under the Abrahamic Covenant
before the Mosaic Covenant at Mt. Sinai that produced the religion of
Judaism. The fact that Circumcision was commanded in the Law of
Moses does not mean that it originated from Moses. The traditional Ibos
practise other customs of the Hebrews (such as the kinsman-redeemer of
Ahamefuna or Amaechina as in the story of Ruth) that have survived
among us after thousands of years of separating from our ancestral
homeland. Any aspect of the Law of Moses being practised by Igbo
Christians such as circumcision is practised on grounds of customs and
traditions, and not for salvation, as no people can live without customs
and traditions. In recent times, modern science has discovered the health
benefits of circumcision on the 8th day which increases our immune
system from childhood, thereby revealing God's intention for giving us
the covenant of circumcision. Apart from being a sign for the natural
seed of Abraham who are of the "Covenant of Promise", circumcision is
good for our health.
In this Dispensation of Grace therefore, Jesus Christ is the end of the
Law for righteousness, Rom. 10: 4, and anybody who seeks to be
justified by the Law of Moses has fallen from grace, Gal. 5: 4., for by
the deeds of the Law shall no man be justified in the sight of God, Rom.
3: 20. The destruction and tearing of the Veil in the Temple was done by
God Himself to signify the abolition of the Old Testament Priesthood
and Temple Worship. And it is a spiritual principle that once the
Priesthood changes, there must be a change of the Law, Heb. 7: 12.
While Jesus was ministering in flesh among the Jews, he did not change
the Priesthood and The Law but changed them by his death upon
fulfilling the requirements of the Law. Thus, the New Testament religion
which we call Christianity started upon the death of Jesus Christ, as a
Covenant Religion sealed with the Blood of Christ at his death, not
during his life time.
ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW
TESTAMENTS:
(1) Under the Old Testament, the Priesthood was given to one tribe, the
tribe of Levi, which became a priestly class, dressing differently from
the rest of God’s people. But under the New Testament, God established
Universal Priesthood whereby every born again child of God is a Priest,
1 Pet. 2: 9; Rev. 1: 6; Rev. 5: 10. Thus, the Clergy Priesthood created by
Roman Catholic Church in 500 A.D., and later copied by other Churches
is against the New Testament Priesthood as Men of God have now taken
up God’s titles and become Lords over God’s flock, turning the
Churches into business empires and making merchandise of their flocks.
(2) Under the Old Testament, the ministers of God were the Levitical
Priests but under the New Testament, God ordained five-fold ministerial
offices of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers in His
Church, Eph. 4: 11 - 14.
(3) Under the Old Testament, God commanded all the people to pay
tithes to the Levitical Priests who were ministers in the temple for their
maintenance. But under the New Testament, God commanded us to give
freely and willingly to support the gospel and ministers of the gospel,
not by compulsion of the Law but voluntarily as a man decides in his
heart, knowing that he who sows sparingly shall also reap sparingly and
he who sows bountifully shall also reap bountifully, Luke 6: 38; 2 Cor.
9: 6 – 7. If Christians were to obey the law of tithe, seeing that all
Christians are priests of the Most High God under the present
dispensation, who then should pay to who? The preachers of tithe under
the New Testament are either ignorant of the dispensation of grace or
wilful deceivers who have turned the Church of God into a business
empire to amass wealth and riches for themselves, knowing that the
threat of curses for breaking the law of tithe in the Book of Malachi will
compel the people to give in fear of the law what they cannot give freely
and willingly under grace. The preachers of tithe in the New Testament
try to justify themselves by claiming that it is the only way to make the
people to bring out their money for the work of the gospel because
human beings do not give freely and willingly unless they are under an
obligation to do so. The law makes it obligatory. This is contrary to the
New Testament doctrine on giving which is stated in 2 Cor. 9: 6 – 7.
The First Apostles of Jesus Christ knew that wolves would enter the
church after their departure and therefore warned that that these
religious merchants and false teachers would through covetousness and
feigned words make merchandise of the flock of Christ, 2 Pet. 2 : 3. The
Apostle Paul was the founder of almost all the churches in the New
Testament- Corinthians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Colossians,
Philippians, Romans, etc, but he never asked them to pay tithes to him
as their “Founder and General Overseer”. He never commanded them to
bring accounts of their church money to him every month! He laboured
with his own hands in tent-making to feed himself without depending on
any church and established the churches as autonomous independent
churches accountable only to God!
(4) The Old Testament was a covenant made only for the benefit of the
Jews while the New Testament was made for the benefit of the whole
world, both Jews and Gentiles who accept and believe in Jesus Christ,
Eph. 2: 11 – 22.
(5) Upon the establishment of the Old Testament, Moses was the
Mediator between God and the Jews, the people of the Covenant. But
upon the establishment of the New Testament, Jesus Christ became the
Mediator between God and Men, 1 Tim. 2: 5.
(6) The Old Testament was established and sealed with the blood of
animals giving effect to the Religion of Judaism while the New
Testament was established and sealed with the Blood of Christ giving
effect to the Religion of Christianity.
(7) The teaching authority of the Old Testament was the Law of Moses
while the teaching authority of the New Testament is the Law of Christ,
Gal. 6: 2, also called The Law of Liberty, James 2: 12, and The Law of
the Spirit of Life In Christ Jesus, Rom. 8: 2. Just as nobody could add to
or subtract from the Law of Moses while it was in force, nobody can
also add to or subtract from the Law of Christ now.
I believe that Pastor Craig is conversant with Dispensational Theology
so I may not waste much time to explain why God who spoke through
Moses and gave the Law of "an eye for an eye" turned around and spoke
through Jesus Christ that if any person slaps us on the right cheek, we
should not retaliate but "turn the other cheek". I may not go on to
explain why God gave the Law through Moses permitting us to swear
oaths but turned around and spoke through Jesus Christ forbidding us to
swear at all, but to let our "Yes" be "Yes", and let our "No" be "No".
Whoever understands this will understand what Jesus Christ meant
when he said he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfil it. To fulfil
a thing means to satisfy its requirements so that nothing remains of it.
This is why the scriptures tell us that Jesus Christ is the end of the law to
those who believe. The principles and cannons of interpretation which
Theologians study in Hermeneutics and Lawyers study in Legal
Drafting & Interpretation make us to understand that the right
interpretation is that which gives effect to the intent and purpose of the
Law Maker. The Apostle Paul observed the error of misinterpreting the
scriptures in his days and said that "the letter killeth but the spirit
giveth life", 2 Corinthians 3: 6. Unfortunately, many christian
leaders are still holding unto the Letter of the Law and have not yet
understood the spirit of the Law of Moses, the intent and purpose of the
Law Maker. The Old Testament and New Testament are in perfect
harmony when properly interpreted to give effect to the intent and
purpose of the Law Maker. There is no single contradiction between the
Old and New Testaments if rightly interpreted! I will not go further on
this knowing that Pastor Craig is a Theologian with Masters Degree
in Divinity and must have already known what I am talking about. So,
let me talk on other important issues.
Pastor Craig said that Jesus Christ did not instruct any person to write a
book to contain his teachings and replace The Law of Moses but
however acknowledged that the gospel message was passed on orally in
the beginning of the 1st Century. We may pose an intellectual question
to Pastor Craig as to whether a message conveyed orally cannot be
conveyed in writing. I also want to prove from the words of Jesus Christ
that he actually intended that his teachings should be written down and
he made provision for the writing. In Matthew 23: 34 - 39 when he wept
over Jerusalem and the stubbornness of her inhabitants, Jesus Christ
prophesied of the persecution of Christians in the following words,
"Wherefore, behold I send unto you Prophets, and Wise men and
Scribes; and some of them you shall kill and crucify; and some of
them shall you scourge in your Synagogues, and persecute them from
city to city..." Matt. 23: 34.
From the above quotation, the third group of Ministers who Jesus
promised to send to the world are the SCRIBES. Why did Jesus Christ
promise to send his own SCRIBES who would be persecuted by the
Jews? Who are the SCRIBES that he has sent and what is the work of
Scribes? It is too elementary for me to teach this Forum of enlightened
minds that a Scribe simply means a Writer!
Concerning the issue of canonization or selection of the Books now
called the Books of the New Testament, I have already explained what a
Testament means. But I must make it clear now that the New Testament
is different from the Books written to convey the message of the New
Testament. The New Testament began and took effect from the Cross of
Calvary whereby the Blood of Jesus Christ was used to seal The
Covenant. This is the Last Will and Testament of the Almighty God.
The gospel message preached before the death of Christ was different
from the message preached after his death and resurrection. The Books
of the New Testament are still being written. Emeka Emekesri is one of
the Scribes still writing the message of the New Testament and sending
Epistles to the Churches. This mail I have addressed to you is actually
an Epistle. An Epistle in Christian Theology is simply a Letter carrying
the message of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit is still at work performing
miracles in the ministerial Acts of the Apostles and Prophets of Jesus
Christ today. The Acts of the Holy Spirit working in Christian Ministries
with signs and wonders all over the world are still being recorded today
in books, journals, magazines and other Christian literatures. Jesus
Christ is still revealing Himself to many people today and calling them
into the Ministry. The Books of the New Testament cannot stop until
Jesus Christ returns again. Emeka Emekesri and other Ministers will
continue to write the message of salvation in books, tracts, magazines,
and letters, conveying the Message of the New Testament to the whole
world. But the New Testament itself, the Everlasting Covenant that
established Christianity beginning at the Cross of Calvary, sealed with
the Blood of Jesus Christ, was completed at Mount Calvary once and for
all and can never be added to. In fact, any person whether angel or
man, who preaches any doctrine contrary to the meaning and intent of
the New Covenant sealed with the Blood of Christ, let him be accursed!
(Gal. 1: 8 - 9).
Pastor Craig Lyons asserted that our New Testament was canonized by
people who had very specific agendas and beliefs; namely to replace the
Hebraic Messianic version of Christianity with a purely separated
Gentile mixed paganism and that the Roman Catholic model for
Protestantism today is a creation of the Romans and Gentiles and not of
a Jew named Jesus! But the fact that Roman Catholic Church and the
Daughters of Mystery Babylon Religion twisted the scriptures for their
own mission on earth has not destroyed the meaning and intent of the
New Covenant sealed with the Blood of Christ. Yes, almost all the
churches in this generation have been turned into business empires
mixed with occultism and paganism making merchandise of the flocks
of Christ as prophesised, 2 Pet. 2: 1 – 3; Acts 20: 28 - 31. The Christian
leaders have drawn away the disciples of Christ and built personal
kingdoms for themselves and their families, lording over the people of
God. When the Founder and General Overseer dies, his widow takes
over and becomes the head of the church. As the widow grows old, she
prepares one of her children to take over the family church business!
The worst thing is that the people love to have it so because they are
held under the spell of psychological witchcraft. The Men of God live in
affluence in the midst of their poor disciples. They own the costliest cars
and aircrafts, the costliest estates and costliest universities. I have said
and maintained that every person has the right to believe whatever he
wants to believe and accept the consequences of his belief. In fact, every
person is a believer, and believes either Truth or Falsehood. As nature
abhors vacuum, so a man's heart must be filled with something, whether
truth or falsehood. Yes, even the devils believe in God and tremble,
(James 2: 19).
I still have a lot to teach on this subject but constrained by time and
space. Every person is therefore advised to study the scriptures more
deeply calling on the Holy Spirit to give him knowledge and
understanding unto spiritual maturity in Christ. Our Senior Minister and
Brother admonished us to "study to show ourselves approved unto God,
a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of
Truth", 2 Tim. 2: 15. Seeing that this is like a Theological Debate
thrown up as a challenge by Bro Moshe Mbanefo and Pastor Craig
Lyons of BET EMET MINISTRIES, I ask for your permission to allow
me endorse this submission in my official capacity as a Theologian and
Minister of the New Testament accepting any challenge for an
International Debate with every person who is in opposition to the New
Testament.
By writing this epistle, it is never my intention to despise any Man of
God and present myself as the wisest or holiest Minister of God on earth
with perfect knowledge and understanding. I do not claim to have
attained perfection in deed and in word as I see myself as a sinner and
condemned criminal saved by grace in Christ Jesus and made a saint,
not by my own works of righteousness (as I have none) but by the
righteousness of God. Therefore, I have nothing to boast of except Jesus
Christ. I have written this epistle in the spirit of love but with the
authority of an Apostle ordained by Jesus Christ for the New
Testament, believing that all those who are preaching the gospel in error
but with sincerity shall humble themselves and accept the truth since
they are my fellow christian brethren striving together with me in the
hard and narrow way that leads to eternal life. May the peace and love
of God always be with you all in Jesus’ Name, Amen.
Your brother,
Emeka Adolf Chigozie Emekesri, Esq.
Bishop of Christ The Rock Community
Contact:
Email: [email protected]
Solicitor General of Biafra Emeka Emekesiri Esq, addresses Biafra on the journey so far
Reviewed by Unknown
on
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Rating:
Reviewed by Unknown
on
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Rating:
No comments: