By Douglas Anele
Over two months ago when a colleague of mine, through a mobile phone
text message, drew my attention to Femi Aribisala’s rejoinder to my
two-part essay in Sunday Vanguard entitled “The Significance of Easter,”
I wanted to reply the following week. But at the last minute I changed
my mind because I am usually unenthusiastic to defend myself against
criticism, especially from religionists who dogmatically believe that a
single“holy”book contains all the important spiritual and moral truths
in the world.
In any case, since Aribisala’s riposte, “Barrack Obama Does Not
Exist,” contains existential fallacies which are the stock-in-trade of
Christians that a 100-level undergraduate logic student can easily
identify and debunk, and since Aribisala himself and like-minded
Christian apologists might believe, falsely, that his rejoinder is a
definitive refutation of my sceptical stance on the historicity of the
biblical Jesus, it is necessary to point out gaping errors in
Aribisala’s reasoning.
To begin with, Aribisala was so eager to parade his “burning bush
experience” that he forgot the main thrust of my argument. I did not say
that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist, simpliciter.
Instead, I argued that,giventhe irreconcilable contradictions in the
Gospels’ narratives about a character named Jesus and the resounding
silence about him by notable historians of the period, which strongly
suggests that the biblical figure is probably a mythologised version of
an obscure insignificant Jewish rabbi who preached unorthodox version of
Judaism in the twilight years of the ancient Roman Empire,the
foundation of Easter celebrationsis mythological as well.
I even stated in my article that “assuming that there was a religious
teacher named Jesus…whose activities were mythologised to create the
fictional character in the gospels and who, as some investigators have
suggested, did not die on the cross… .” ThereforeI did not rule out the
possibility that the Gospels’ accounts are fabricated narratives woven
around an actual person. What my essay ruled out is complete veracity of
what was written about a certain Jesus in the New Testament.
That said, Aribisala’s parody of Obama being a myth, and his
tongue-in-cheek reference to the existence of his wife, are pointless
and totally misplaced. Indeed, those areinappropriateexamples, because
despite the shenanigans of Donald Trump and others who challenged the
American citizenship of Obama, there are authentic verifiable documents
that establish the particulars of his birth beyond reasonable doubt, and
no one has ever claimed that he performed the kind of incredible
superhuman feats credited to Jesus in The Holy Bible.
Moreover, there is no record of Obama resurrecting after death and
ascending into heaven to sit at the right hand of a god. Mutatis
mutandis, the same arguments apply to Karen, Aribisala’s wife, who I am
certain exists because she was my teacher and I see her regularly at the
Faculty of Arts building, University of Lagos. It is trivially correct,
as Aribisala asserts, that there are conflicting reports about all
historical figures.
But the issue is that, even in the case of founders of influential
philosophical-spiritual and religious systems in antiquity, such as
Socrates, Plato, Buddha, Confucius etc., authoritative historians of the
period they lived documented some of their activities. Again, the
actual writings of these personages, or verifiable accounts of their
teachings and activities written by disciples, have come down to us.
Concerning Buddha, Zoroaster,Mohammed, and other paradigmatic figures
around whom legendshave accreted over millennia, there are extant
trustworthy records testifying to theiractual existence, and historians
generally reacha consensusabout what is fact and what is fiction in
available documents about them.But the case of Jesus is on another level
altogether.
Even if we ignore contradictions in the Gospels’ account and the
incontrovertible fact that the New Testament is definitely not a
historical record since the extant copies were written in Greek not
earlier than seventy years after the events they purportedly describe by
believers who lived in foreign countries, it is very odd that
historians of the period did not write about a so-called messiah who
performed momentous miracles.
Meanwhile, there is strong agreement among scholars that a small
passage in the massive, thirty-two volume historical work of the
first-century Jewish priest and historian, Josephus, which mentioned the
name ‘Jesus,’is a Christian fabrication.
Of course, Femi Aribisala is neither interested in the question of
the veridicality of the Gospels’ narratives nor in the findings of
eminent scholars that have painstakingly investigated the historicity of
Jesus: like most Christian apologists he is much more preoccupied with
maintaining a dogma at all cost.
Anyway, his conflation of objective reality with his own
hallucinatory experiences and those of Saul is a typical instantiation
of slipshod reasoning characteristic of religious apologists.
Philosophers such as Gaunilo, David Hume, Immanuel Kant and Bertrand
Russell have definitively demonstrated the error of extrapolating from
subjective experiences to objective existence.
The key point here is that, no matter what Aribisala claims to have
done with his “living Jesus”and irrespective of the number of “burning
bush experiences” he had had in the past or will have in the future, all
these are totally irrelevant to the question of establishing the
objective reality of the contents of those encounters.
Aribisala’s illogical leap from phantasmagoria to actuality is
symptomatic of a mind suffused with illusory consolations of religious
dogma and unwilling to entertain the possibility that Christianity is
fundamentally mythological.If a well-educated man like Femi Aribisala is
unwilling to differentiate between mythology and reality just to defend
a dogma, you can imagine the mindset of millions of illiterate and
undereducated Nigerians.
Christian apologists would continue to defend acrobatically the
mythologies in the New Testament precisely because without myths
Christianity would lose its psychological appeal and eventually wither
away, thereby jeopardising the easy privileges enjoyed by the clergy and
the entire Christian establishment. That is why the demythologising
programmeof Rudolf Bultmannwill never be widely accepted by theologians.
If indeed it is true, as Femi Aribisala claimed, that Jesus showed up
to him “in person,” I can only remind him that, for most young children
during Yuletide Father Christmas or Santa Claus shows up “in
person.”Does it then follow that there is an actual Santa Claus?
Vanguard
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
Why Christians Won’t Go To Heaven
by Femi Aribisala
Most Christians remain far from the kingdom of God because we still believe pre-eminently in sacrifices.
Every Christian expects to go to heaven. But surprisingly, Jesus’ kingdom dynamics predicts different. Jesus says: “The last will be first, and the first last.” (Matthew 20:16). Christians are today’s first who will be tomorrow’s last. Jesus says furthermore: “The sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 8:12). Christians are today’s sons of the kingdom.
Believing a lie
The Jews were convinced their place in God’s kingdom was secure as sons of Abraham. But paradoxically, their place was in jeopardy for precisely that very reason. (Matthew 3:8-10). The kingdom of heaven is not prepared for the sons of Abraham. In order to inherit eternal life, the sons of Abraham have to forsake Abraham, their father, and become sons of God. (Matthew 19:29).
Not understanding kingdom dynamics, Paul says: “All Israel will be saved.” (Romans 11:26). But in truth, no Israelite can be saved. The kingdom of God does not recognise Israel. For an Israelite to be saved, he has to be born again into an entirely new nation; the “little flock” of God. (Luke 12:32). Jesus proclaimed God’s verdict on Israel: “The kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.” (Matthew 21:43).
Alas, Christians face a similar predicament today. We declare we are saved by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. However, this very belief will lead to our condemnation. God despises sacrifices. He says: “Whoever sacrifices a bull is like one who kills a man, and whoever offers a lamb, like one who breaks a dog’s neck. They have chosen their own ways, and their souls delight in their abominations.” (Isaiah 66:3-4).
The temple cult
In biblical Israel, you were deemed righteous if you participated in the sacrificial rituals. However, Jesus was always found among “sinners;” those ostracised for their non-participation in the temple cult. When queried about this anomaly, Jesus’ said he has no interest in anyone who trusts in rituals. He is only interested in those who rely exclusively on God’s mercy. He declared: “Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” (Matthew 9:13).
Most Christians have refused to learn what Jesus means. Jesus knew some would later maintain his death was a sacrifice for sins. Therefore, he recommended a study of the scriptures in order to controvert such thinking. God says repeatedly through his prophets that he desires mercy and not sacrifice. (Hosea 6:6). He says through Jeremiah: “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat meat. For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.” (Jeremiah 7:21-22).
Indeed, speaking through David, Jesus promised God he would not give sacrifices and offerings on his incarnation. He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; my ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require. Then I said, “Behold, I come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do Your will, O my God, and Your law is within my heart.” (Psalm 40:6-8).
However, the ears of most Christians remain closed. We fail to recognise the voice of the Good Shepherd in that messianic psalm. We insist on sacrifices; what Jesus plainly says God neither desires nor requires. Therefore, God says: “These have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights in their abominations. I also will choose affliction for them.” (Isaiah 66:3-4).
God approved of Jesus’ refusal to participate in the sacrificial rituals in the temple. After over thirty years, God validated Jesus’ positions by proclaiming to the Jews: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17). Jesus viewed the sacrificial system with disdain. He started his ministry by forcibly clearing out the sacrificial implements from the temple (John 2:14-16); and he ended his ministry by repeating the same action emphatically. (Matthew 21:12-13).
Mercy, not sacrifice
According to Jesus, God’s mercy is readily available to those who repent and forgive those who offend them. (Matthew 6:14-15). But first, we have to stop trusting in vain sacrifices. When a scribe asked him which commandment is the first of all, Jesus said it is the commandment to love the one and only God. The scribe replied: “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (Mark 12:32-33).
Jesus commended this man’s statement, but remarked: “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” (Mark 12:34). The man was not yet in the kingdom because he still did not recognise that his offerings and sacrifices were of absolutely no value to God. But he was not far from the kingdom because he had taken the first steps in diminishing their value. However, most Christians remain far from the kingdom of God because we still believe pre-eminently in sacrifices.
Jesus warns: “Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:20). However, the righteousness of today’s Christian is far less than that of the scribes and the Pharisees. While they only believed in the sacrifice of animals, Christians today believe in the sacrifice of a human-being. Moses warned the Israelites against such evil tendencies: “You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12:31).
Repent or perish
When Herod killed some Galileans even while they were offering sacrifices to God, some wondered why God refused to protect them. The conclusion was that their sins must have been great. But Jesus said their sins were no greater than those of others. Their blunder was in offering sacrifices (which God did not require); instead of repenting (which was God’s requirement). Jesus then declared that all those who make the same mistake will suffer the same fate: “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13:2-3).
Christians are committing the same blunder today by claiming the sacrifice of Jesus has earned us the forgiveness of sins. As long as we continue in this delusion, we will not do what God requires, which is to repent of sin. As long as we rely on Jesus’ alleged sacrifice, we cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
Our loss is the gain of others with better understanding: “It shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ there it shall be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’” (Hosea 1:10).
Vanguard
Most Christians remain far from the kingdom of God because we still believe pre-eminently in sacrifices.
Every Christian expects to go to heaven. But surprisingly, Jesus’ kingdom dynamics predicts different. Jesus says: “The last will be first, and the first last.” (Matthew 20:16). Christians are today’s first who will be tomorrow’s last. Jesus says furthermore: “The sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 8:12). Christians are today’s sons of the kingdom.
Believing a lie
The Jews were convinced their place in God’s kingdom was secure as sons of Abraham. But paradoxically, their place was in jeopardy for precisely that very reason. (Matthew 3:8-10). The kingdom of heaven is not prepared for the sons of Abraham. In order to inherit eternal life, the sons of Abraham have to forsake Abraham, their father, and become sons of God. (Matthew 19:29).
Not understanding kingdom dynamics, Paul says: “All Israel will be saved.” (Romans 11:26). But in truth, no Israelite can be saved. The kingdom of God does not recognise Israel. For an Israelite to be saved, he has to be born again into an entirely new nation; the “little flock” of God. (Luke 12:32). Jesus proclaimed God’s verdict on Israel: “The kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.” (Matthew 21:43).
Alas, Christians face a similar predicament today. We declare we are saved by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. However, this very belief will lead to our condemnation. God despises sacrifices. He says: “Whoever sacrifices a bull is like one who kills a man, and whoever offers a lamb, like one who breaks a dog’s neck. They have chosen their own ways, and their souls delight in their abominations.” (Isaiah 66:3-4).
The temple cult
In biblical Israel, you were deemed righteous if you participated in the sacrificial rituals. However, Jesus was always found among “sinners;” those ostracised for their non-participation in the temple cult. When queried about this anomaly, Jesus’ said he has no interest in anyone who trusts in rituals. He is only interested in those who rely exclusively on God’s mercy. He declared: “Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” (Matthew 9:13).
Most Christians have refused to learn what Jesus means. Jesus knew some would later maintain his death was a sacrifice for sins. Therefore, he recommended a study of the scriptures in order to controvert such thinking. God says repeatedly through his prophets that he desires mercy and not sacrifice. (Hosea 6:6). He says through Jeremiah: “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat meat. For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.” (Jeremiah 7:21-22).
Indeed, speaking through David, Jesus promised God he would not give sacrifices and offerings on his incarnation. He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; my ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require. Then I said, “Behold, I come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do Your will, O my God, and Your law is within my heart.” (Psalm 40:6-8).
However, the ears of most Christians remain closed. We fail to recognise the voice of the Good Shepherd in that messianic psalm. We insist on sacrifices; what Jesus plainly says God neither desires nor requires. Therefore, God says: “These have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights in their abominations. I also will choose affliction for them.” (Isaiah 66:3-4).
God approved of Jesus’ refusal to participate in the sacrificial rituals in the temple. After over thirty years, God validated Jesus’ positions by proclaiming to the Jews: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17). Jesus viewed the sacrificial system with disdain. He started his ministry by forcibly clearing out the sacrificial implements from the temple (John 2:14-16); and he ended his ministry by repeating the same action emphatically. (Matthew 21:12-13).
Mercy, not sacrifice
According to Jesus, God’s mercy is readily available to those who repent and forgive those who offend them. (Matthew 6:14-15). But first, we have to stop trusting in vain sacrifices. When a scribe asked him which commandment is the first of all, Jesus said it is the commandment to love the one and only God. The scribe replied: “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (Mark 12:32-33).
Jesus commended this man’s statement, but remarked: “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” (Mark 12:34). The man was not yet in the kingdom because he still did not recognise that his offerings and sacrifices were of absolutely no value to God. But he was not far from the kingdom because he had taken the first steps in diminishing their value. However, most Christians remain far from the kingdom of God because we still believe pre-eminently in sacrifices.
Jesus warns: “Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:20). However, the righteousness of today’s Christian is far less than that of the scribes and the Pharisees. While they only believed in the sacrifice of animals, Christians today believe in the sacrifice of a human-being. Moses warned the Israelites against such evil tendencies: “You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12:31).
Repent or perish
When Herod killed some Galileans even while they were offering sacrifices to God, some wondered why God refused to protect them. The conclusion was that their sins must have been great. But Jesus said their sins were no greater than those of others. Their blunder was in offering sacrifices (which God did not require); instead of repenting (which was God’s requirement). Jesus then declared that all those who make the same mistake will suffer the same fate: “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13:2-3).
Christians are committing the same blunder today by claiming the sacrifice of Jesus has earned us the forgiveness of sins. As long as we continue in this delusion, we will not do what God requires, which is to repent of sin. As long as we rely on Jesus’ alleged sacrifice, we cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
Our loss is the gain of others with better understanding: “It shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ there it shall be said to them, ‘You are sons of the living God.’” (Hosea 1:10).
Vanguard
“Some National Assembly members can barely write their names” – Deputy Senate President reveals
Ike Ekweremadu, Nigeria’s number two man in the senate, is not pleased about the quality of leaders in the country. So pissed is he about it in fact, that he launched into a scathing criticism of some of his fellow national assembly members.
Ekweremadu bared his burdened heart in Awka, Anambra State while delivering the 2012 Zik Lecture Series organised by the state council of the Nigeria Union of Journalists. The lecture was entitled, ‘True Federalism and the Political Ideology of the Great Zik’.
In an unveiled criticism at the educational quality of some of his colleagues in the National Assembly, he disclosed that some of them could barely write their own names.
He was particular about those of his colleagues from the South East, wondering how an “educationally advanced” zone like that could “still send to the National Assembly some people who can barely write their names.”
Ekweremadu said that without knowledgeable leadership of the mould exhibited by the late Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, the country was heading nowhere.
According to the lawmaker, the country needs leaders that are patriotic, selfless, knowledgeable, incorruptible, who have a lot of integrity and who will always put country first.
He said without transformational leadership, not even an error-free constitution or a balanced federal structure can help Nigeria.
“Even the best constitution or federal structure in the world cannot yield the best of democracy dividends or drive the lofty dreams of a nation unless there is a general commitment by the leadership and citizens alike to live by the principles and letters of that constitution and the norms that promote development.
“Leaders who cannot think beyond their immediate environment have nothing new to offer their people,” he said.
Knowing national Assembly members and how they do not like being called out, expect a battle royale soon.
YNaija.com
“I do not regret saying I do to my husband” – Bishop Benenoch’s estranged wife pens moving piece
These are tough times for the Benenoch family. Going through a divorce is never an easy thing for couples. But with her husband, David Benenoch, talking tough about his decision to carry on with the divorce, Esther Benenoch, the troubled wife of the bishop has penned a piece (part-sermon, part-memoir), which has perhaps given her an edge as far as public perception goes.
In a piece, No Regrets, which she wrote on her blog, Esther Benenoch included a touching paragraph in which she said among other things that, “… inspite of all that is going on I do not, and will never regret saying I do to my husband, and I will do it again in a heart beat even though I do not understand all that is going on right now.”
The piece does not reveal anything new in terms of the reason behind the impending divorce, but she definitely did not do herself any harm in writing it.
Read the full piece below:
Regret is an emotion that we should not give our selves to as believers. For as an emotion it does not take us far with God neither does it give us the spiritual results that we seek. Feelings of remorse is temporal and has it’s foundation in the flesh, it is carnal and therefore can not please God. King Saul regreted his actions in not killing King Agag and sparing some the cattle and sheep. His remorse was fleeting and not heart felt because first he blamed the people and he did to save face or gain respect from Samuel and the people.YNaija.com
Judas Iscariot also regreted his selling his Lord Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, but he went and committed suicide afterwards . In Matthew 27 vs 3, ”When Judas who had betrayed him, and saw that Jesus was condemned he was seized with remorse and returned the 30 silver coins to the chief priests and elders.” In vs 5 it is written ”so Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.” This is the result of regret this how far it can go, hopelessness, despair, and destruction. The reason for this simple, regret stems from the wisdom of the world, it is carnal, soulish and therefore lacks the power to save or transform us.
One of the best decisions I have made in life is being married to my husband, it’s one thing am glad and grateful to God for. As achievements go, while many women are fighting to make a name for themselves, with all sincerity and I believe it, my greatest achievement would have been my husband and my family, nothing fills me with joy as being Mrs. Esther Benenoch. It may not sound like much, but for it is a big part of my destiny. I know what you are thinking that may be that’s why this has befallen me, I still do not regret it,God is faithful.
And so inspite of all that is going on I do not, and will never regret saying ‘I do’ to my husband, and I will do it again in a heart beat even though I do not understand all that is going on right now. But my marriage is a walk of faith; much like my walk with this awesome wonderful Lord of my life, Jesus. I take seriously the Word of God ”the just shall live by faith and not by sight.”
For this reason I say no to regret, and yes to mourning and repentance.
Yes to mourning and repentance because it is of the Spirit of God and it brings transformation .
Regret —–no, because regret is false religion having a form of godliness but denying the power of God to save to the uttermost.
Repentance—-yes, for it admits the powerlessness of self,and wholly acknowledges and depends upon the power of God to save.
Regret—-no, for it is temporal and often like a dog goes back to it’s vomit. It is mere words and letters and often kills–like judas, see Psalm76 vs 34-36.
Repentance—yes, it is action, obedience, humility, brokenness and admission that I am helpless without God. Repentance definitely yes — because it causes my heart to follow hard after God who alone upholds me with righteous right hand—-Psalm63 vs 8.
Repentance — yes,because it causes my heart to sing, ”O God my help in ages past,my hope for years to come”.
Repentance—yes, because it says with a broken heart to my God and my mercy–”to whom shall I go to, you alone have the words of eternal life.”
Repentance –yes, because it causes my heart to sing, “great is your mercy and faithfulness,your loving kindness is better than life.” It praises the God of second chances, and says to Him,”create me a clean heart and renew a right spirit within me, cast me not away from your presence.”
Regret—no, For it walks away in defeat, but with a hard heart, unyielded, impatient to wait upon the God of all flesh who causes all things to work together for the good of all those who love Him and are called by His purpose.
Repentance–yes, as it waits in hope upon Him who makes all things new and says to the Lord—’Lord when you said to my heart seek me, my heart says to you, your face O Lord will i seek, for my goodness comes only from you.
Repentance—yes, It brings you face to face before the Lord with whom we have to deal and keeps you there until He turns your mourning into joy and dancing again, until He lifts your sorrows,so you can no longer stay silent; but sing and dance and rejoice for His joy has come. Repentance and mourning cleanses the soul, as through tears and brokenness, you recount the countless blessings of God, His righteous acts of salvation, help,deliverance, and trust Him for new blessings.
Regrets —No, for it blames God and others and does not remember past blessings, neither is grateful.
Job did not regret, neither did David they mourned and repented for for failures and mistakes. You are a child of God, do not regret, His love is greater and stronger than our mistakes and Failures. There is no need or room for regret in a believers life, that’s the way of the world. I leave you with these words of encouragement; in Acts the bible encourages ”repent and be saved[delivered] that times of of refreshing may come,, then Matthew 5vs4 ”Blesssed are those who mourn for they shall be comforted’
Lord teach us to mourn and live a life of repentance on this side of eternity so that our weaknesses, failures, mistakes will not prevail against us, and we can be every thing you have called us to be; a people of power and praise, holiness so we will show the praises of Him who has called out darkness into His marvelous light on earth.
Nigeria Needs A More Dictatorial NASS
|
Last week, Dr Doyin Okupe, one of the numerous presidential spokesmen
but by far the most confused and convoluted, said the National Assembly
was becoming too dictatorial towards the president. Of course, not many
people take comments from Okupe seriously. Okupe obviously needed a job
and made that very clear from his conduct, and Jonathan had to create
one for him. Since then, he has done everything to prove to the
president that he is a very grateful man. But he has done so in ways
that are sometimes cheap and devoid of self-respect. However, even if we
do not take Okupe’s comments seriously, they should at least give us a
window into the thinking of his masters. That is why, when he said the
National Assembly was becoming dictatorial in the aftermath of the
president’s budget speech, we could take it literally that it was
President Jonathan speaking. |
It was the National Assembly that exposed the fuel subsidy scandal, among several others. The executive has not bothered to follow through the findings and recommendations of both houses of the National Assembly. The president is more interested in protecting felons that have been exposed by the National Assembly than in acting in the best and larger interest of the Nigerian state.
During the presentation of the 2013 budget by the president to a joint session of the National Assembly last week, both David Mark, the Senate president, and Aminu Tambuwal, the speaker of the House of Representatives, signalled that both houses would now perform their oversight functions more dutifully. Both men spoke about non-implementation of past budgets and let it be known that such transgressions would not be tolerated again. The Senate president hinted that they would not just be rubber-stamps for the president’s adventures. The speaker also made it clear that they would work in the best interests of the Nigerian people who elected them even if that meant stepping on the toes of the president.
The president and his boys actually think the National Assembly should massage their egos even if they are destroying the country. Both the Senate president and the speaker have appropriately responded to Okupe’s silly statements but I hope it doesn’t just end there. If the National Assembly desires to serve the nation and the people more diligently, they should dust up all their public hearings of the last one year and insist that the president must start working on them. And there would be no better place to start than the most scandalous of them all – the fuel subsidy report that showed that the president’s men expropriated N2.6 trillion for fuel subsidy as against the N245 billion appropriation of last year. This is a very, very grievous offence that must not be allowed to pass.
And if the president does not take the reports seriously, then, commencement of impeachment proceedings by both houses would be in order. Someone has to put a stop to the rubbish that is currently going on in Nigeria at some point anyway. Just maybe a little dictatorship from the National Assembly is all that would be required to get Jonathan to sit up and to stop taking the nation for a ride.
EARSHOT
Again, Where Are All These Guns Coming From?
Again, yesterday, unknown gunmen opened fire and killed at least 22 people at Dogon-Dawa village in Kaduna State. People just came from nowhere with guns and started shooting innocent people, and that’s it. Last week, 14 people were killed in Plateau State while two road safety marshals were shot dead in Kano. A few days earlier, more than 40 students were similarly murdered at Federal Polytechnic, Mubi; and, a few days later, it was the turn of several students from the University of Maiduguri to be similarly murdered. For God’s sake, shouldn’t the government start looking into where these arms are coming from? Shouldn’t the Jonathan government be under intense pressure to find a solution to these gruesome murders? So far, the president and his government do not appear to be under any kind of pressure whatsoever. It used to be fashionable to just dismiss all killings under the franchise of Boko Haram. Not anymore please.
The government must shape up and carry out its most basic responsibility to the people without resorting to cheap excuses, or simply ship out!
Leadership
US blames Ojukwu, Gowon for Biafra starvation deaths
At
the peak of Nigeria’s civil war in 1968, as hundreds of thousands
starved to death in Biafra, it was deadly politicking between the
conflict’s two key figures-Yakubu Gowon and Odumegwu Ojukwu- that kept
food out of the region, escalating the death toll, a secret U.S.
dispatch detailing the war says.The document says disagreement on shipments between Mr. Gowon and Mr. Ojukwu, were more to blame for the failure of relief materials reaching dying children, women and men desperately in need of food.
The confidential cable, obtained by PREMIUM TIMES, provides a rare insight into one of the most fatal angle of the war, as narrated by a superpower that regarded itself neutral in the conflict but which seemed to have sympathy for Biafra.
The disclosures came as the nation recalls devastating details of the conflict that killed millions; a recollection shovelled into national consciousness by foremost writer, Chinua Achebe’s new book, There Was a Country.
Mr. Achebe’s portrayal of the late leader of the defunct Western region, Obafemi Awolowo, as the mastermind of Nigeria’s policy of blocking food shipments to Biafra, ignited a week of fierce verbal exchanges between the Igbos and the Yorubas.
But in part, the U.S. account offers a sharp contrast to Mr. Achebe’s position, blaming instead, war-time military ruler, Mr. Gowon, and secessionist leader, Mr. Ojukwu, for the imbroglio.
Mr. Gowon, the cable said, discontinued air shipments to the Eastern region despite pressure from the United States and the Red Cross, fearing transport airplanes were being used to convey arms to Biafra.
Initial shipments by the Red Cross, suspected to be pro-Biafra at the time, had delivered 16 to 20 tons of food a night in a lone DC–4, feeding an estimated 850,000 people in Biafra three meals per week, the memo said.
But the Gowon-led military government barred the airlifting, which originated from Sao Tome and Principe, a Portuguese colony at the time. Portugal was amongst the few European nations that backed Biafra.
The Nigerian side, the cable written from the United States said, was however willing to allow land shipment, and would offer air permit only on guarantees they will not be abused for arms shipment.
Those were conditions Mr. Ojukwu refused to accept, even while thousands of his people, including children, were starving to death.
The former Biafran leader also rejected food shipments sent by road fearing they might be poisoned, and that such route might open an advance corridor for federal government troops, the dispatch adds.
The Red Cross too, would not implement any relief operation without the explicit approval of both sides.
While all these happened, at least 400 to 600 died a day from starvation, the document stated.
“All of this is happening in the shadow of what is pretty clearly a buildup for a new federal offensive designed to take the 10,000 square miles still held by the rebels,” the memo said.
“There are also mounting reports on increased Biafran military activity, allegedly (though probably falsely) led by French officers. If either or both sides take the offensive, the relief problem becomes almost impossible,” it warned, adding that the US needed to take “a strong go at the Feds (federal government) on this point, but their answer is a forbidding “The other side has left us little choice.”
The “other side” mentioned in the document, appears to refer to Mr. Ojukwu’s Biafra, which, more concerned with winning the war, refused to accept the conditions spelt out by the Nigerian government for delivering food to the troubled region.
DailyPost
Biafra drags Nigeria to court
On
behalf of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Bilie Human Rights
Initiative has filed the case, Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/102/2012 in the
Federal High Court of Nigeria in the Owerri Judicial Division against
the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Attorney-General of the
Federation seeking to enforce the rights of indigenouspeople of Biafra to self-determination and independence.
World Press Release:
Gentlemen of the Press, we are here today to let the world know what is happening in Nigeria. The safety of the lives and properties of indigenous people of Biafra living in Nigeria are no longer guaranteed. The Biafrans were forced to surrender their sovereignty and become Nigerian citizens on the promise that their lives and properties would be protected by the Government of Nigeria. Now, it has become clear that the Government of Nigeria is impotent and incompetent to protect the indigenous people of Biafra who were not consumed by the war. In fact, the Nigeria Police and Army Officers have continued to harass, intimidate, arrest, detain and kill Biafran human rights activists who are agitating for the self-determination and independence of Biafra by peaceful means but spare the militant activists from other nationalities agitating for similar outcome. There is clear and demonstrable policy of discrimination, marginalization, oppression and racism against the remnants of the indigenous people of Biafra living in Nigeria which has caused some of them to deny their identity in order to receive favours from the Federal Government of Nigeria. The situation has compelled Bilie Human Rights Initiative to file multiple suits against the Federal Government of Nigeria and its agents on behalf of the indigenous people of Biafra to protect their human and peoples’ rights. At the moment, the two suits Bilie Human Rights Initiative has filed are as follows:
(a) Case number 1 is for the Self-determination and Independence of Biafra
(b) Case number 2 is an order seeking restraint on the part of the Federal Government of Nigeria and her agents from the continued intimidation, harassment and threat to life of the publishers and distributors of Eastern Pilot Newspaper and violation of the publication’s freedom of expression as guaranteed under the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The Case for Self-determination and Independence of Biafra:
On behalf of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Bilie Human Rights Initiative has filed the case, Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/102/2012 in the Federal High Court of Nigeria in the Owerri Judicial Division against the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Attorney-General of the Federation seeking to enforce the rights of indigenous people of Biafra to self-determination and independence. The said suit brought by way of originating summons requires the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Attorney-General of the Federation to appear in court to answer fundamental questions impinging on the rights of Indigenous People of Biafra which to date has remained unanswered and untested in any competent court of law.
LET the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Attorney-General of the Federation within thirty days after service of this summons on them, inclusive of the day of such service, cause an appearance to be entered for them to this summons which is issued upon the application of BILIE HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE representing INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA who are indigenes of the South East geopolitical zone of Nigeria, parts of the South-South geopolitical zone of Nigeria and parts of the Middle Belt zone of Nigeria seeking to enforce their right to self-determination pursuant to Articles 19 – 25 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, and to redress all wrongs occasioned on them by the Defendants in consequence whereof the Claimants pray for the determination of the following questions:
1. Whether the Indigenous People of Biafra who are the remnants that were not consumed in the Nigerian-Biafran war of 1967 – 1970 have the right of self-determination pursuant to Articles 19 – 25 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
2. Whether the Claimants who identify themselves as Biafrans by indigenous identity are committing any offence by doing so contrary to any provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 or contrary to any provisions of the Criminal Code and whether it is a crime under any national or international law to mention the name of BIAFRA or for the remnants of the Indigenous People of Biafra who were not consumed by the war to maintain their indigenous identity as Biafrans with their native emblems and symbols as they do now even though they are Nigerians by citizenship and nationality laws; and if the answer is in the negative, whether the Defendants are justified to arrest, detain, shoot and or kill the children of the Claimants for identifying themselves as Biafrans by indigenous identity contrary to the rights of indigenous peoples as guaranteed by Articles 19 – 25 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990.
3. Whether by the interpretation of Section 2 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 it is a crime for the Claimants and or the people of other ethnic nationalities held together in Nigeria against their will to exercise their right to self-determination by seeking for independence under the law as guaranteed by Articles 19 – 25 Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 and the United Nations Resolution 61/295 of 2007 known as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
4. Whether it is lawful under the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 and under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 for the Defendants to hold the ethnic nationalities in Nigeria together by force against their will who now constitute the six geopolitical regions namely: South East, South South, South West, North Central, North East and North West, in a forced marriage akin to slavery contrary to their human and peoples’ rights of self-determination as there is no provision in the Nigerian law or international law that makes it a crime for a people to seek for freedom by the rule of law.
5. Whether the amalgamation of the peoples of the south and north by the British Government to form one country called Nigeria was with the consent and agreement of the indigenous peoples of the lands; and if the answer is in the negative, whether the Order-in-Council 1910 – 1913 made by the British Government to create Nigeria in 1914 was null and void ab initio for lacking legitimacy as it could not form the basis of the Nigerian Constitution thereby rendering the amalgamation invalid.
6. Whether by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1963 which took effect on 1st October 1963 and remained in force until the midnight of 30th September 1979 the Defendants were right to seize and confiscate the assets, properties, money, and all treasures belonging to the Claimants by promulgating the Abandoned Properties Act of 28th September 1979 while the 1963 Constitution was in force, being more than nine years after the war and after the declaration of “One Nigeria” while regarding the Claimants as Nigerian citizens but depriving them of their properties, money and assets; and if the answer is in the negative, whether the Defendants are still justified to withhold the said money, properties and assets belonging to the Claimants.
7. Whether the Defendants were justified to violate the International Humanitarian Law and the Laws of War known as the Geneva Convention 1949 (to which the Defendants acceded and ratified on 20th June 1961) by bombing the Biafran civilians, killing the Biafran civilians and using starvation to kill the children, women and the elderly of the civilian population of the indigenous people of Biafra in the war of 1967 – 1970 in order to win the war.
8. Whether the Defendants by registering Nigeria as a member of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) in 1986 and licensing an Islamic Sharia Bank in Nigeria under the 1999 Constitution contrary to Section 10 of the Constitution of Nigeria have violated the Constitution and turned Nigeria into an Islamic country; and if the answer is in the affirmative, whether the Claimants have the right to dissociate themselves from the Defendants and refuse to answer the citizens of an Islamic country in the exercise of their right to freedom of worship, freedom of association and self-determination as a people.
AND LET THE DEFENDANTS TAKE NOTICE that the Claimants who are called Biafrans by indigenous identity and Nigerians by nationality have commenced the legal processes leading to their referendum for self-determination and shall at the hearing of this summons pray the Honourable Court for:
(a) An Order declaring that the Claimants have the right to self-determination pursuant to Articles 19 – 25, Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, and are therefore free to exercise their right to self-determination for independence or any other political status of their choice.
(b) An Order declaring that the ethnic nationalities that make up Nigeria are not held as slaves under Section 2(1) of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 and therefore have the right of self-determination to decide their political status by the rule of law.
(c) An Order declaring that the Defendants are liable to pay to the Claimants by way of compensation or reparation the present value of all the money, properties and assets of the Claimants seized by the Defendants as a result of the Nigerian-Biafran war of 1967 – 1970 since the properties were not seized in wartime but nine years after the war based on the post-war discriminatory policies and laws made by the Defendants to suppress the Claimants from generation to generation.
(d) An Order directing the Defendants to comply with the provisions of Article 20 (3) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap 10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 and consequently give all assistance to the Claimants in the exercise of their right to self-determination for a peaceful conduct of their referendum for independence or for any other political status of their choice.
(e) An Order granting judicial protection to the Claimants, their homes, their offices and their correspondences individually and collectively as they exercise their right to self-determination and an Injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents and privies, from interfering, arresting, molesting, intimidating, disturbing, hindering or harassing the Claimants or doing any act or omitting to do any act aimed at frustrating the Claimants’ exercise of their right to self-determination which they have commenced with a referendum.
(f) An Order compelling the Defendants to release from its prisons and detention centres all indigenous people of Biafra who are agitating as pro-Biafra Movements for Independence of Biafra by peaceful means and to drop all charges of treason or treasonable felonies made against them and to release all their properties seized by the Defendants.
(g) An Order affirming the Memorandum of Ohanaeze Ndigbo dated 28th June 2012 submitted to the National Assembly for the restructuring of Nigeria into six autonomous self-governing regions, namely: South East, South West, South South, North East, North West and North Central, as a manifestation of the Will of the People in the exercise of their right to self-determination and directing the Defendants to present an Executive Bill to the National Assembly for a law granting autonomy and self-governing status to the six geopolitical regions in Nigeria; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, in the role of the Judiciary as the last hope of the common man, an Order directing the Defendants to present an Executive Bill to the National Assembly for a law dissolving Nigeria in peace along the compatible ethnic groups instead of allowing the country to break up in bloodshed.
(h) An Order declaring that the Defendants by registering Nigeria as a member of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) have turned Nigeria into an Islamic country contrary to Section 10 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 and therefore the Claimants being Christians have the right to dissociate themselves from the Defendants and refuse to be called the citizens of an Islamic country.
The facts of the case and exhibits relied on are contained in a 44-Paragraph Affidavit filed with the suit. Bilie Human Rights Initiative is by this legal action accelerating efforts to bring legal clarity to the issue of arbitrary arrests of indigenous people of Biafra. We believe that what Biafra lost after the war was its sovereignty and not its people since we were not annihilated by Nigeria as Rome annihilated Carthage.
About 99% of the population of the indigenous people of Biafra are Christians holding tenaciously to their Christian faith, believing in freedom of worship, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of expression, and separating the State from Religion. We believe in democracy as the only system of government that guarantees our fundamental human rights. Unfortunately, the Moslems from the North who were merged with us in the country called Nigeria do not believe in democracy and do not separate their Religion from the State. They do not believe in freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of expression. In a conflict between the law of the State and the law of Islam, the Moslems insist that the law of Islam must prevail while we insist that the law of the State must prevail. They regard democracy as a false religion as shown by the fliers and posters they are spreading in Britain, America, Nigeria and other countries of the world where democracy is practised. This shows fundamental irreconcilable differences in the ideologies of the two peoples. All the efforts of their ethnic militia called Boko Haram are aimed at Islamizing the whole country and forcing us to become Moslems! The Biafrans saw this Islamic virus ahead of time and sought to free themselves in 1967-1970 but the odds were too much against them since Great Britain and other developed countries of the west could not see what the Biafrans saw. In the Ahiara Declaration, General Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu revealed that the Biafran Struggle was not only a political or military struggle but also a struggle for religious freedom. In his words, “The Biafran struggle is, on another plane, a resistance to the Arab-Muslim expansionism which has menaced and ravaged the African continent for twelve centuries.
Our Biafran ancestors remained immune from the Islamic contagion. From the middle years of the last century Christianity was established in our land. In this way we came to be a predominantly Christian people. We came to stand out as a non-Muslim island in a raging Islamic sea. Throughout the period of the ill-fated Nigerian experiment, the Muslims hoped to infiltrate Biafra by peaceful means and quiet propaganda, but failed. Therefore, to militant Islam, Biafra is a stumbling block to their plan for controlling the whole continent.
Nigeria obtained only a military victory over Biafra but not spiritual conquest. Nigerians and their Governments treat us like a defeated people though mouthing “No Victor No Vanquished” in hypocrisy. Any person who identifies himself as an Ibo or Biafran receives persecution, hatred and rejection from Nigerians. Fair-minded Nigerians have acknowledged that the Government of Nigeria is designed to marginalize and persecute us. Alhaji Salisu Lamido Salisu, in his Conference Lecture at Arewa House in 1999, said concerning us as follows: “They have been defeated in war, rendered paupers by monetary policy fiat, their properties declared abandoned and confiscated, kept out of strategic public sector appointments and deprived of public services. The rest of the country forced them to remain in Nigeria and has continued to deny them equity. The Northern Bourgeoisie and the Yoruba Bourgeoisie have conspired to keep the Igbo out of the scheme of things. In the recent transition when the Igbo solidly supported the PDP in the hope of an Ekwueme presidency, the North and South-West treated this as a Biafra agenda. Every rule set for the primaries, every gentleman’s agreement was set aside to ensure that Obasanjo, not Ekwueme emerged as the candidate… Now, with this government, the marginalization of the Igbo is more complete than ever before. The Igbos have taken all these quietly because, they reason, they brought it upon themselves. But the nation is sitting on a time-bomb”.
Yes, indeed, Nigeria is sitting on a time-bomb. Fair-minded northerners and westerners have acknowledged that the Government of Nigeria has been quite unfair to us. The maltreatments and persecutions have caused some of our people to deny their native identity in order to survive in Nigeria. Some of our people in the South-South region have changed their names to sound foreign in order to escape the persecution while some towns and villages have been forcefully assimilated into neighbouring tribes. Our spirits are still alive despite all the persecutions we suffer in Nigeria. This is why we are insisting on regaining our freedom because we still believe in our indigenous identity as Biafrans.
We want the Court to determine whether it is an offence for the remnants of the ancestors of Biafraland who were not consumed by the war to maintain their indigenous identity as a people and exercise their right to self-determination. We want the Court to determine whether it is an offence to mention the name of BIAFRA and believe in Biafra and preach Biafranism as a gospel of national liberation. We are fast-tracking legal efforts to compel the Nigerian Government to stop arresting anybody answering to or wearing Biafran emblem, insignia or any material that reflects their belief in Biafra. We believe that this a test case for the development of human rights law, not only for the benefit of the Nigerian legal system but also for the benefit of other countries of the world who are bound by the United Nations Charter on Human Rights.
Concerning our people who have denied their ancestral identity as Biafrans and Ibos in order to survive in Nigeria, we do not hold the denial against them as we see it as a self-preservation technique which is often caused by fear and lack of boldness. We remember the biblical example of the Apostle Peter who denied his Lord and Master Jesus Christ when his life was in danger. But as Peter repented and wept for denying his identity as a disciple of Christ, we advise our brethren who have denied their Igbo and Biafran identity to repent and return to their ancestral roots because our deliverance has come.
Gentlemen of the Press, we cannot comment on the merits of the case now since it is before the court but we enjoin you to follow the proceedings and give it a wide publicity in the interest of the public for the advancement of human rights law. The Court has fixed the case for 30th October 2012 when the parties will appear in Court for the first time.
Thank you, Gentlemen of the Press, for your patience and rapt attention to this briefing.
Signed:
Elder Eddy Anyanwu
Press Secretary
Bilie Human Rights Initiative
DailyPost
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)