British and Nigerian governments plan to destabilize the Biafra nation

By Ama Chukwugoziem (Abia Writers)

Edited and published by Joseph Afokwalam

According to history, Britain joined the Eastern and Western colonies to form the Southern protectorate in 1900. In November 1901, the British forces invaded Biafra land in the Anglo-Aro war because Ndigbo had resisted the penetration and rising power of the British empire since 1883. In 1906, the British added Lagos to the Southern colony and amalgamated Southern and Northern colonies in 1914 to become Nigeria. When the wind of independence started blowing in Africa, Britain reluctantly gave Nigeria her independence.

Because Britain want to continue exerting influence in Nigeria, they entered into an agreement with and handed the new country over to the less intelligent, less educated Fulani oligarchy. The British still rules Nigeria via the Fulanis to date. The Fulanis’ ethnic bigotry, and religious fundamentalism, were among the societal evils that reigned in Nigeria by the 1960s. The British government encouraged these ills in their servants, the Fulanis, which led to one of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, "the Biafra genocide". 

It was out of selfish British interest that they merged the heterogeneous society called Nigeria together. What is this interest? The wealth in the south. According to history, the south has a surplus while the desert north is poor. The colonial masters could not get enough resources in the north to run the northern protectorate. Hence, they had to merge the north and the south to augment the north with the southern wealth. 

The discovery of oil and gas in Biafra land in 1956 made it easy for the British to hand the entity called Nigeria over to terrorists Fulani to rule. Their corrupt mind calculated that it would be easier for them to lay their hands on the wealth in Biafraland with Fulanis in power than with Biafrans. We all heard the former British PM David Cameron call Nigeria "fantastically" corrupt, and people do not know that Britain corrupted the whole world. No wonder, according to research conducted by the transparency international's UK chapter (TI-UK), corruption is a more significant problem in the UK than is currently recognized - The New African magazine August /September 2012.

The Fulani Oligarchy displayed the same level of corruption that led to the coup d’état in 1966 and the resultant massacre of innocent Biafrans in the north. The British did not intervene to stop these problems at that time but indirectly supported the Fulani. Biafrans searched for their freedom to avoid future killing, which resulted in the great revolution of 1967. Britain came with their war machines to massacre Biafrans to maintain the status quo. More than six million Biafrans were killed, including over one million children starved to death by Britain, Nigeria and their allies. To date, Britain has not addressed the genocide; instead, they swept it under the carpet.

The inciting warning to their nationals to avoid travelling to Biafra land is in furtherance of their destabilization agenda. Britain is coming up with what they did in the past (1967-70), give the dog a bad name and hang it. One ponders if the north ravaged by insecurity, multiple kidnappings, and Bokoharam terrorism is more peaceful than Biafraland. They planned with their destabilization agents to heat up the polity and destabilize the peaceful Biafraland. It is common knowledge that the problem in Biafraland is caused by Fulani sponsored politicians and the illegal arrests and killing of peaceful indigenous people exercising their inalienable right of self-determination. They take Bokoharam terrorists from prison, tag them repentant, give them military uniforms and send them to Biafraland. Which country in the world does that? The plan is to destabilize Biafraland, kill and imprison as many Biafrans as possible.

What is the position of the British government when any of its citizens have a problem? Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, a British citizen was kidnapped in Kenya, and extra-ordinarily renditioned to Nigeria for about 4 months now. Has Britain made any positive move to ask about him? No, because he is a Biafran. Even when his health condition was deteriorating, did they do anything? One cannot remove from his mind what the British are good at doing, bearing in mind that they are still ruling Nigeria via the Fulanis. As an old saying goes, "until the rotten tooth is pulled out, the mouth must chew with caution".