Nnamdi Kanu's Court Case With The Nigerian Government, Adjourned

 Nnamdi Kanu's Court Case With The Nigerian Government, Adjourned

The Nigerian Federal High Court located in Abuja, has adjourned the case of Mazi, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), to Wednesday 10th of November, 2021. Thursday 21st October, the scheduled date for the resumption of his case, began as usual with heavy vehicular/human traffic within Abuja. Amongst them are Kanu's teeming supporters, lawyers, Nigeria security agents and news reporters, thronging to the court premises.

Before his appearance, security agents had densely barricaded the court entrance to citizens, four lawyers only were allowed into the court room for his defense. The former governor of Anambra State, was equally seen at the premises decrying his prevention from accessing the court room as well as that of a famous activist and owner of Sahara reporters, Sowore, who was later mobbed in the presence of operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS). Though he later returned to  show his solidarity to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. 

The Presiding Judge, Binta Nyako, objected to the request made by Barrister Ifeanyi Ejiofor, Kanu's lead counsel, to transfer  his client to the Correctional Center in Kuje, insisting that he, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, remains in DSS custody for now. Barrister Ejiofor at the close of proceedings, addressed the pressmen. He, in the company of Bruce Fein, IPOB's legal counsel in the United States of America and others, appreciated all supporters and well wishers. He however, condemned the issue of unabated harassment of lawyers and journalists by security agents. 

Barrister Ifeanyi Ejiofor stated that the judge has granted permission for more visits by relevant persons to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu on a more frequent basis and equally commented on the newly amended seven count charges preferred against the IPOB leader. The lead counsel said that the charges have no basis in law or the constitution and therefore, amounted to a wild goose chase. He assured supporters of victory soon on the case. 

Some journalists and lawyers who were prevented from entering the court room by security agents, were seen outside, protesting their exclusion. Obviously, Ejiofor further addressed the pressmen based on professional ethics on reasons why the journalists were barred. At the end of proceedings, IPOB teeming members and supporters who traveled to support their leader in Abuja, Nigeria's capital city, were seen dancing and singing in mini rallies. They were addressed by comrade Sowore who assured them of standing together with them in solidarity against tyranny and excesses of the government.

The Nigerian government seems to have towed the part of due process occasioned by numerous threats of havoc if Nnamdi Kanu was not brought to court. This sadly seemed to have reinforced the belief of some, that peaceful advocacy is blatantly being ignored by the government or treated with kid gloves, while it respects violent threats and those who can match its impuniy more in rhetoric, action or inaction.

Onyemachi Gabriel

Reporting for Family Writers Press International

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Remains Resolute In His Quest For Biafra

 Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Remains Resolute In His Quest For Biafra

It is over four months now, since the illegal arrest or better still, the state sponsored kidnap of the leader of the Indigenous People Of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, by Muhammadu Buhari led Nigerian government. This was perpetrated with the connivance of the Kenyan government, led by Uhuru Kenyatta .

The illegal justice system in Nigeria, with corrupt politicians and the military, shamelessly defending an unrepentant despot instead of the Constitution, has the backing of the brown envelope media journalists and a multitude of compromised citizens. The activites of these people constitute the reason why Nnamdi Kanu, the IPOB leader, yet remains in the dungeon of the Nigerian Department of State Services (DSS), till date. A man who has committed no crime under known laws, should not be held against his will for any reason. 

The quest for Biafra restoration is deeply embedded in the hearts of every Biafran and no amount of pressure from the Nigerian government will make Mazi Nnamdi Kanu or the IPOB leadership, to derail from the course of the project. Holding Nnamdi Kanu hostage in the DSS dungeon and torturing him to sign papers in secret, will not be the answer either.  Biafrans know the stand of their leader on matters concerning the Biafra restoration. "It is Biafra or death"! In his own words, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu said, "I rather die than sign this rubbish. Conduct a Referendum, let the people choose". The unadulterated resoluteness of this leader, clearly remains a motivation to all Biafrans.

Written by Onyemachi Gabriel

Edited by Cindy Etuk

For Family Writers Press International

Nigerian Armed Forces at 61: A Metaphor For A Declining Country

 Nigerian Armed Forces at 61: A Metaphor For A Declining Country

Life is not meant for the confused but the brave! This is because it is only the brave that has the guts to face life at all cost.

The confused politicians have recruited the soldiers and other security forces to help them to oversee Nigeria from its previous heyday with optimism and good economy to its current comatose state. One can conclude that the armed forces' involvement in politics combined with their record of brutal dictatorship, drafting of the current constitution and their constant deployment by serving governments during elections, are just as complicit in the decline of the country as well as its policy makers

The Nigerian security agencies have been the bravest on paper as well as against civilians. Their paper bravery got them a reputation in Africa while their ill manners against unarmed civilians paint them as terrorists, enemies and threats to every civilian. But is the Nigerian security really all that brave? If bravery is courage and fearlessness in front of the enemies and capable threats, then Nigerian forces may never evee qualify as being brave. 

In hindsight, Nigerians highly rated their security forces high but slowly, have disappointedly lost confidence in them and everything about them! With each bad government that comes in, their ratings plunged till the current terror tainted government opened the floodgates of tyranny and terror from the armed forces of Nigeria. 

First, I must state it clearly about their operations viz a viz the attack on the home of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and Sunday Adeyemi also known as Sunday Igboho, in 2017 and 2021 respectively. The manner and mode of the operations are condemnable and do not even look like security operations but rather, like terrorists operations. The subsequent denial of the security forces of their involvements in such raids while contrary evidence was already broadcasted to the general public, only brought them more ridicule than insulation.The security that broke into the peaceful homes of the two activists and the level of carnage, destruction of private property and killings, clearly show that the operations of the Nigerian securities are never far from that of Boko Haram, ISWAP and many other terrorists. 

The #Endsars protest taught the masses many things about the Nigerian securities, their cowardice and modus operandi. During the protest, I personally saw monsters who do not have conscience nor respect for the Nigerian nation they claim to be defending. The use of high caliber bullets on protesters who chanted the Nigerian anthem and holding the Nigerian flag, cemented their reputation among the millennial population. Meanwhile, it did not bring festival of praises to them but a festival of tears to the people of different climes. 

The weakness and the lost of war by the Nigerian security agencies against Boko Haram, ISWAP, Fulani killer herdsmen, so-called bandits etcetera, have definitely much to say about cowardise attitudes than bravery, based on expenses and results. Eyewitnesses have attested that the soldiers always run for their safety each time they see those terrorists. There have been so many attacks on army bases in the Northern part of Nigeria where tens, hundreds and thousands of soldiers have lost their lives and have equally deserted the army bases as they ran for safety. The recent attack on the Nigerian Defence Academy and the abduction of some officers by bandits speak volumes. 

While the attacks are on in North-East and  North-West regions, more security agents are being deployed to the South-East to extort from motorists, massacre innocent civilians and burn down houses.

They terrorize citizens of the region, arrest and abduct many in the name of stopping peaceful Indigenious People Of Biafra (IPOB), from their quest for Biafra or restoring peace in areas with lowest crime rates in the country. Just last week, it was revealed in a video, how the Nigerian soldiers burned down over seventy (70) homes including a king's palace and killing many youths in Izombe, in Imo State, after taking sides between warring oil bunkerers. A commander of the Nigerian soldiers in Izombe was also caught directing soldiers to "kill anybody you see".

The involvement of the Department of State Services (DSS) officer in the unknown gunmen operations after a shoot out with policemen, is also an evidence that in disguise, many outrageous attacks on record could be traced to government forces.

Then, their running away from unknown gunmen, whom they have been searching for, has judged that the Nigerian securities are rather cowards and not brave!

Never forget, that "beating, intimidating or killing those hapless residents you swore to serve is never bravery but cowardice !" 

Written by

Onyemachi Gabriel

Edited by

Emmanuel Iwuchukwu

For Family Writers Press International

Referendum For A Determined People

 Referendum For A Determined People

The current dissatisfaction of Nigerians and the call for self-determination resulted from the abuse of power and the people's mandate over the years. A revolution is imminent, various mass actions planned are in place, everyone knows this except the Buhari led Fulani dominated government and those benefiting from the corrupt system. The political class over time, abused their positions against the youths and the Eastern part of Nigeria for both personal and political gains. The calls for resistance resonated with large sections of the society in support more than against. The end is close.

The government now understands that the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is the voice of the people who over the years, have been subdued and restricted economically and otherwise. Living in hardship due to mismanagement by political and violent religious leaders in Nigeria are now being challenged and they wonder why the people have lost confidence. The devastating outcome of this gross negligence is what Nigeria is presently experiencing.

People without compulsion, now sit at home, to express their dissatisfaction over the violation of human rights especially that which concerns Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. They have also declared that there would be "No More Election" in the South-East region. The political leaders in their ignorance and lust for power, have ignored the main reason behind the people's clamor, thereby putting up rather, shameful campaigns as their heavy-handed response for justification. 

The only concern for Nigerian politicians revolve around political relevance to the Fulani power brokers, which is in contrast with reality. They still choose to appear irrational before the world than to stand with their own people. 

Governors in the South-East disappointedly pretend that they command the loyalty of the people. It is time for the South-East politicians to stop chasing shadows and face the truth. People want to determine their future through a referendum and not election. This is a demand that represents the interest of the majority. The people now understand that elections in Nigeria only serve the interest of the politicians and the elites. No significant change was recorded with previous governments. It has come to that point where the interest of the people must be paramount. 

For decades now, Nigeria's corrupt system has recycled for the politicians' favoritism, gangsterism and indifference from one group to the other. The union of Nigeria hinges on exploitation, marginalization and genocide against the Igbos. The crude oil rich Niger Delta and most productive in terms of contribution to the government coffers, never develops, making the region defenseless for their premeditated multifaceted push for conquest. They have crippled all seaports and airports and sited all major developmental projects in the North, thereby making it difficult for survival in the East. 

The clueless politicians from the Eastern region (South-East/South-South), could not revive companies or build new ones. They only watch the economy of the region decay. 

These politicians who are in the real sense, "Fulani stooges", do not even lift a finger when Fulani terrorists residing illegally in bushes on Biafran soil, harass, abduct, rape and/or kill women in their farms. They still play deaf, dumb and blind to the extrajudicial killings being committed by the Nigerian police and the military against their citizens. The people have had enough. The resistance the government is facing today is a direct consequence of their gross negligence and abuse of power over the years.

Now is the time to reason. The interest of the people is worth more than any political interest. They should be allowed to decide if they want to continue in Nigeria or go their separate ways. This is a decision the people will have to make themselves through a referendum. These young people are determined to take their destinies in their own hands and I think it is best for the politicians and those in positions of authority, to come together and ask important questions. Is election really the solution to the problems facing Nigeria? Let us get to the root. Nigeria as presently constituted, is not viable. The politicians should give ears to the voice of these young people so as  to avert the impending anarchy. 

The decision of the people cannot be suppressed through the deployment of military/policemen to kill the innocent. The revolution will not stop. The world has seen the Nigerian government in bed with recognized terrorists like Boko Haram and Fulani herdsmen. A referendum is the only sure option. It is a recognized civil channel to self-determination and the people should be allowed to exercise that right. It is the only thing that Biafrans ask of the world. 

Written by Cindy Etuk

Edited by Emma Iwu

For Family Writers Press International

Nnamdi Kanu's Court Case: A Make Or Mar Experiment For Nigeria

 Nnamdi Kanu's Court Case: A Make Or Mar Experiment For Nigeria

Following the illegal abduction, extraordinary rendition and detention of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), by the Nigerian government, now is the time for whatever thing that is left of the global community to redeem itself by decisively acting to avert the impending danger.

The Nigerian government currently led by a group of individuals (cabals) called the presidency, presumably headed by Muhammadu Buhari, comprises of gluttonous and illiterate individuals who never knew that there exists something as international laws prohibiting one from arresting another (even if the person is a criminal not to talk of a freedom fighter), in another country without going through a normal judicial process called extradition process. Their ignorance and illiteracy were seen with the stupendous jubilation when they succeeded with the extraordinary rendition of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. It was a jubilation that quickly turned to marooned faces upon learning the implication of their dastardly act.

The IPOB leader, whether hated or loved, is a colossus, an icon, an idol and a rare gem. He is leading a movement, a nation. The millions he is leading are rattled and agitated. They want to see and hear from him. The action of the Nigerian government in abducting him was a big mistake made out of desperation. The trial of citizen Kanu, a political prisoner, is capable of imploding Nigeria. The bad experiment of gauging the people’s reaction, exemplified by the failure to provide him in court on the last court date as fixed, is not sustainable, with the escalation of the agitation and can only lead to dire consequences. To be clear, come Thursday 21st October 2021, the Nigerian government must provide him in court or take responsibility for whatever happens, going forward.

The thing is that the Indigenous People Of Biafra (IPOB), will not only embark on a "one month total lockdown of the South-East region" to cripple everything possible as they promised, but the unknown gunmen (victims of state-sponsored injustice and police brutality) that see the term "one-Nigeria" as a symbol of oppression, will intensify their vengeful activities against the supporters and promoters of the fallacious one Nigeria. It is not a prediction but a deduction from the available social parameters. This time, I do not think that even the South-East governors will be spared of the incoming uncertainties.

After breaking international laws, the world should have by now, taken punitive actions against the Nigerian government. It is an intentional provocation and one that calls out the double standard and hypocrisy of the international community. To suggest that the Fulani cabal running Nigeria is above the law, is an invitation to anarchy. The Nigerian government has no choice but to ensure that it brings Nnamdi Kanu to court as scheduled. It is either that he is brought to court and openly released without conditions or face the wrath of the God of Biafrans at the end of the one hundred and fifty (150) days prayer action. The international community should play its role by insisting that the right thing must have to be done. 

Regardless of what is done however, whether they bring him to court or not, the truth remains that Nigeria is caged between the sea and the lion. The only solution at their disposal is to have Nnamdi Kanu released. Aside this, not even bringing him to court and taking him back to the prison thereafter, can save Nigeria as they are planning to detain him for as long as they desire in other  to dampen his morale for the freedom of Biafra. This can never happen, no doubt. Therefore, we encourage his abductors and detainers to stop their jaundiced pontification, halt the absurd search for evidence to be used against him because there is definitely none. We therefore demand that he should be released unconditionally, come Thursday, October 21st, 2021. Biafrans are waiting and wstchong!

Written by Ifeanyi Chibueze James

Edited by Chibueze Daniel 

For Family Writers Press International

Unknown Gunmen And The Nigerian History Of Blackmail

 Unknown Gunmen And The Nigerian History Of Blackmail

Nigerian Minister confront Nigerian DSS

In the 1960s and particularly during the Nigeria/Biafra war, the Nigerian soldiers disguised themselves with Biafra army uniforms and attacked today's "South-South" people to blackmail the Biafran soldiers, thereby making our "South South" brothers and sisters to believe that it was Biafran soldiers that killed their people. 

That blackmail formed part of the reasons why we seem not to be in good terms with our own people from the "South South" region till date. The criminal activities of the unknown gunmen today was the same ploy used by the Nigerian military in the 1960s. They exhibited that same blackmailing tactics during the EndSars saga that overwhelmed the country between October 2020 and February 2021, wherein genuine protests and protesters were blackmailed through the instrumentality of Nigerian government's sponsored thugs and the rest is now history. Biafrans must wake up. This spate of killings by the unknown gunmen are ploys by the Nigerian government to blackmail the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). We must never allow this to happen.

You cannot tell me that despite all the military jets hovering all over Imo State, that these unknown gunmen came to Njaba, stormed the meeting of traditional rulers and killed many without the so-called "Operation Golden Dawn" soldiers tracking them down. Biafrans must stand up to defend IPOB from any wave of blackmail being targeted on this global emancipation movement. We know where these murderers are coming from as well as their operational antics. We must never give in to their blackmails. The unknown gunmen which stem from the Nigeria Department of State Services (DSS) and the Army, are the masterminds behind the killing and wanton destruction of the properties of our people. All hands must be on deck to roundly counter this evil tide. We must never allow their blackmails to see the light of the day. 

They killed traditional rulers at Njaba, Imo State, to instigate our people against IPOB. Do not forget that Dave Umahi of Ebonyi State clearly stated that they will raise anti-Biafra agitation groups that will counter the peaceful and just intents of IPOB. What is happening in the South-East region today, is the handiwork of the Fulani run Nigerian government with their willing tools ably represented by Dave Umahi of Ebonyi State and Hope Uzodinma of Imo State respectively. Let us stand firm and bold to defend and protect IPOB from agents of blackmail, death and destruction.

#GodBlessBiafra! #GodBlessIPOB!! #GodBlessNnamdi KanuAndLoversOfFreedpm!!!

Written by Emeka Gift

For Family Writers Press Internatoonal.

Breaking News: IPOB Sues Ivan Sascha Sheehan Over Washington Times Publication

 Breaking News: IPOB Sues Ivan Sascha Sheehan Over Washington Times Publication

LONDON, ENGLAND - MAY 30: Demonstration of Indigenous People of Biafra at Trafalgar square on May 30, 2018 in London.. Photo Jaroslav Moravcik 

The leadership of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has officially sued Professor Ivan Sascha Sheehan, in a District Court of Columbia, United States of America. IPOB, a well registered organization and a globally acclaimed largest Indigenous mass freedom movement with strong presence in over one hundred (100) countries, discovered a recent Washington Times Publication as not just ridiculous but grievously malicious and defamatory.

The Executive Director of the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Baltimore, United States of America, Professor Ivan Sascha Sheehan, had in a Washington Times published article, described the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), as "A Small African Terrorist Group", which is a brazenly compromised opinion of hate with absolutely no iota of truth.

While giving response to this provocative and grossly misleading publication titled: "USA Ignores Small African Terrorist Group - IPOB, At Its Peril", IPOB has unambiguously stated that the published Opinion completely smacks of defamation in every standard. Professor Ivan Sascha Sheehan accused IPOB of violent crimes including killing of children.

The suit was initiated and filed by the Organization's International Legal Counsel, Professor Bruce Fein and was obtained by Family Writers Press International.

The suit document reads: -

Bruce Fein (D.C. Bar No. 446615)

FEIN & DELVALLE PLLC

Attorney for Plaintiffs

________________________________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA,

a UK registered Community Interest Company,

160 London Road Barking IG11 8BB,

London, United Kingdom,

Plaintiff CASE NO:

v.

IVAN SASCHA SHEEHAN,

University of Baltimore, Baltimore,’

Maryland, UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE,

1420 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland, and

The Washington Times LLC, 3600 New York Avenue, NE

Washington, D.C. 20002

 Defendant.

___________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT FOR DEFAMATION

Comes now Plaintiff, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), through its undersigned

attorney, and files this Complaint for defamation seeking, among other things, compensatory and

punitive damages. Plaintiff states as follows.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Case 1:21-cv-02743 Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 1 of 20

1. This Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims under 28

U.S.C. 1332 because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, IPOB is a citizen of

the United Kingdom, and Defendants Sheehan and the University of Baltimore are

citizens of Maryland and Defendant The Washington Times LLC is a citizen of the

District of Columbia.

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

2. This Court possesses personal jurisdiction over Defendants under the District of

Columbia Long-Arm Statute, D.C. Code section 13-423 (a) (3) by causing tortious

injury in the District of Columbia by a defamatory publication in the District of

Columbia.

VENUE

3. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b) (2) because the events that gave

rise to Plaintiff’s defamation claims occurred in the District of Columbia.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) is a UK registered Community Interest

Company headquartered in London, United Kingdom. IPOB’s paramount mission is

to secure a sovereignty referendum on Biafra to be organized and conducted by the

United Nations by peaceful means. IPOB’s leader is Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. At present,

he is under illegal detention by the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN). Among

other things, Nnamdi Kanu, a UK citizen, has been counterfactually charged with

treason, i.e., levying war against Nigeria based on ancient radio broadcasts from

London which studiously refrained from encouraging or inciting violence in favor of

peaceful protests protected by freedom of speech and association.

Case 1:21-cv-02743 Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 2 of 20

5. Defendant Ivan Sascha Sheehan is the executive director of the School of Public and

International Affairs at the University of Baltimore. On information and belief,

Defendant Sheehan is an unregistered foreign agent of the Federal Government of

Nigeria in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

6.Defendant University of Baltimore employs Defendant Sheehan. On information and

belief, Defendant University of Baltimore is an unregistered foreign agent of the

Federal Government of Nigeria in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

7.Defendant The Washington Times LLC is a newspaper company published in

Washington, D.C. responsible for publishing Defendant Sheehan’s 7 defamatory

falsehoods about Plaintiff IPOB in conspiracy with the FGN as alleged hereafter

STATEMENT OF FACTS

8. On or about Monday, October 4, 2021, Defendant Sheehan published in The

Washington Times an “ANALYSIS/OPINION” defamatory article headlined “U/S/ ignores

small African terrorist group IPOB at its peril.”

9. The article contained multiple defamatory falsehoods about Plaintiff IPOB

published with ill will and with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard of

whether they were true or not.

10. Defamatory falsehood number 1 asserted “An African terrorist organization

[IPOB] is suing U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken….” IPOB is not a terrorist

organization under U.S. law or any law of a foreign country other than Nigeria. IPOB’s

designation as terrorist organization in Nigeria was made via a judicial edict with no hearing

or due process. IPOB opposes violence. It supports an independent Biafran sovereignty by

peaceful means. At present, the Federal Republic of Nigeria is engaged in an ongoing

Case 1:21-cv-02743 Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 3 of 20

genocide of Biafrans. Terrorist organizations employ unlawful violence against civilians to

advance political objectives. IPOB does not.

11. Defamatory falsehood number 2 asserted, in context, that IPOB deserves listing as

a foreign terrorist organization by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 219 of the

Immigration and Nationality Act: “The violent secessionist group in question—the

Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)—is yet to be designated as a Foreign Terrorist

Organization by the US Department of State.” Among other things, an FTO listing requires

proof that the organization engages in premeditated politically motivated violence against

civilians or noncombatants. See 22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2); 8 U.S.C. 1182 (a) (3) (B). IPOB

does not engage in politically motivated violence against civilians or noncombatants or

otherwise and does not qualify for listing as an FTO under the laws of the United States.

12. Defamatory falsehood number 3, in context, asserted that IPOB leader Nnamdi

Kanu supports terrorism: “That [Nnamdi Kanu] feels no need to even disguise his support

for terrorism is worrisome.” But Nnamdi Kanu opposes terrorism. It is the Federal

Government of Nigeria that daily practices terrorism against Biafrans.

13. Defamatory falsehood number 4, in context, asserted that since December 2020,

IPOB has engaged in violent and escalating attacks on both Nigerian security personnel and

civilians: “Since then [December 2020] violent IPOB attacks on both security personnel and

civilians have surged by a terrifying 59%, deaths by 344%.”

14. In fact, IPOB refrains from the use of force except in self-defense. IPOB has not

attacked either security personnel or civilians since December 2020 or otherwise.

15. Defamatory falsehood number 5, in context, accused IPOB of killing the Fulani

and inciting murder of any person who rents or provides accommodations to a Fulani:

Case 1:21-cv-02743 Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 4 of 20

“Through Radio Biafra, IPOB regularly calls on its supporters to not only kill the Fulani, but

to kill ‘any landlord that gives accommodations or rents his house or her house to a Fulani

person.”

16. In fact, IPOB does not call on supporters to kill the Fulani. Neither does IPOB

call on its supporters to kill landlords that rent to the Fulani.

17. Defamatory falsehood number 6, in context, accuses IPOB of butchering six

young Fulani children with machetes, burning a baby alive, and discarding the corpses in

mass graves: “In one recent [IPOB] attack on a Fulani community, six young children

were butchered with machetes—one, a baby, was burned alive. Their bodies were

discarded in mass graves.”

18. In fact, IPOB did not kill young Fulani children, did not burn a baby alive, and

did not bury the putative corpses in mass graves.

19. Defamatory falsehood number 7, in context, accuses IPOB of resorting to threats

and violence to coerce politicians and civilians to surrender to its political demands:

“Whether with threats made on Biafra Radio or repeated acts of violence, IPOB coerces

politicians and civilians to acquiesce to its radical political demands.”

20. In fact, IPOB refrains from threats or violence or coercion in its political activities,

which are peaceful and protected by the universally protected rights of free speech or

association under international law.

21. Defamatory falsehoods 1-7 all falsely accuse IPOB of crimes of violence, including

terrorism, which are per se defamatory.

22. On information and belief, Defendant Sheehan conspired with the Federal

Government of Nigeria (FRN) to write and publish the 7 defamatory falsehoods in

Case 1:21-cv-02743 Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 5 of 20

exchange for a monetary payment or something of material value from the FRN as a

reward.

23. On information and belief, the Defendant University of Baltimore conspired with

Defendant Sheehan and the FRN to have Defendant Sheehan’s 7 defamatory

falsehoods published referencing his capacity as the executive director of the School

of Public and International Affairs at the University of Baltimore in exchange for

money or anything of value from the FGN.

24. On information and belief, Defendant The Washington Times LLC published

Defendant Sheehan’s 7 defamatory, polemical, and counterfactual falsehoods in

exchange for money or anything of material value from the FGN. The transparent

extreme bias in Defendant Sheehan’s article and the clumsy, amateurish style are far

below the customary publication standards of The Washington Times LLC.

25. Defamatory falsehoods 1-7 all accused Plaintiff IPOB of complicity in crimes of

violence which are defamatory per se.

26. The intent and effect of defamatory falsehoods 1-7 subjected IPOB to professional

and social ostracism and curtailment of its ability to attract members and donations.

COUNT 1-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT SHEEHAN

27. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-26 as if alleged herein.

28. Defamatory falsehood number 1 was published by Defendant Sheehan with

knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not, and

with spite or ill-will.

29. Defamatory falsehood number 1 has proximately caused damage to Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

Case 1:21-cv-02743 Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 6 of 20

30. Defamatory falsehood number 1 was published with ill-will or spite by Defendant

Sheehan justifying an award of punitive damages.

COUNT 2-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT SHEEHAN

31. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-30 as if alleged herein.

32. Defamatory falsehood number 2 was published by Defendant Sheehan with

knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not, and

with spite or ill-will.

33. Defamatory falsehood number 2 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

34. Defamatory falsehood number 2 was published with ill-will or spite by Defendant

Sheehan justifying an award of punitive damages.

COUNT 3-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT SHEEHAN

35. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-34 as if alleged herein.

36. Defamatory falsehood number 3 was published by Defendant Sheehan with

knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not, and

with spite or ill-will.

37. Defamatory falsehood number 3 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

38. Defamatory falsehood number 3 was published with ill-will or spite by Defendant

Sheehan justifying an award of punitive damages.

COUNT 4-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT SHEEHAN

39. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-38 as if alleged herein.

Case 1:21-cv-02743 Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 7 of 20

40. Defamatory falsehood number 4 was published by Defendant Sheehan with

knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not, and

with spite or ill-will.

41. Defamatory falsehood number 4 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

42. Defamatory falsehood number 4 was published with ill-will or spite by Defendant

Sheehan justifying an award of punitive damages.

COUNT 5-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT SHEEHAN

43. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-42 as if alleged herein.

44. Defamatory falsehood number 5 was published by Defendant Sheehan with

knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not, and

with spite or ill-will.

45. Defamatory falsehood number 5 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

46. Defamatory falsehood number 5 was published with ill-will or spite by Defendant

Sheehan justifying an award of punitive damages.

COUNT 6-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT SHEEHAN

47. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-46 as if alleged herein.

48. Defamatory falsehood number 6 was published by Defendant Sheehan with

knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not, and

with spite or ill-will.

49. Defamatory falsehood number 6 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

Case 1:21-cv-02743 Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 8 of 20

50. Defamatory falsehood number 6 was published with ill-will or spite by Defendant

Sheehan justifying an award of punitive damages.

COUNT 7-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT SHEEHAN

51. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-50 as if alleged herein.

52. Defamatory falsehood number 7 was published by Defendant Sheehan with

knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not, and

with spite or ill-will.

53. Defamatory falsehood number 7 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

54. Defamatory falsehood number 7 was published with ill-will or spite by Defendant

Sheehan justifying an award of punitive damages.

COUNT 8-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT THE WASHINGTON TIMES

55. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-54 as if alleged herein.

56. Defamatory falsehood number 1 was published by Defendant The Washington Times

with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not,

and with spite or ill-will.

57. Defamatory falsehood number 1 has proximately caused damage to Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

58. Defamatory falsehood number 1 was published with ill-will or spite by Defendant

The Washington Times justifying an award of punitive damages.

COUNT 9-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT THE WASHINGTON TIMES

59. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-58 as if alleged herein.

Case 1:21-cv-02743 Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 9 of 20

60. Defamatory falsehood number 2 was published by Defendant The Washington Times

with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not,

and with spite or ill-will.

61. Defamatory falsehood number 2 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

62. Defamatory falsehood number 2 was published with ill-will or spite by Defendant

The Washington Times justifying an award of punitive damages.

COUNT 10-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT THE WASHINGTON TIMES

63. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-62 as if alleged herein.

64. Defamatory falsehood number 3 was published by Defendant The Washington Times

LLC with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or

not, and with spite or ill-will.

65. Defamatory falsehood number 3 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

66. Defamatory falsehood number 3 was published with ill-will or spite by Defendant

The Washington Times LLC justifying an award of punitive damages.

COUNT 11-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT THE WASHINGTON TIMES

67. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-66 as if alleged herein.

68. Defamatory falsehood number 4 was published by Defendant The Washington Times

LLC with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or

not, and with spite or ill-will.

69. Defamatory falsehood number 4 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

Case 1:21-cv-02743 Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 10 of 20

70. Defamatory falsehood number 4 was published with ill-will or spite by Defendant

The Washington Times LLC justifying an award of punitive damages.

COUNT 12-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT THE WASHINGTON TIMES

71. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-70 as if alleged herein.

72. Defamatory falsehood number 5 was published by Defendant The Washington Times

LLC with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or

not, and with spite or ill-will.

73. Defamatory falsehood number 5 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

74. Defamatory falsehood number 5 was published with ill-will or spite by Defendant

The Washington Times LLC justifying an award of punitive damages.

COUNT 13-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT THE WASHINGTON TIMES

75. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-74 as if alleged herein.

76. Defamatory falsehood number 6 was published by Defendant The Washington Times

LLC with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or

not, and with spite or ill-will.

77. Defamatory falsehood number 6 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

78. Defamatory falsehood number 6 was published with ill-will or spite by Defendant

The Washington Times LLC justifying an award of punitive damages.

COUNT 14-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT THE WASHINGTON TIMES

79. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-78 as if alleged herein.

Case 1:21-cv-02743 Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 11 of 20

80. Defamatory falsehood number 7 was published by Defendant The Washington Times

LLC with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or

not, and with spite or ill-will.

81. Defamatory falsehood number 7 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

82. Defamatory falsehood number 7 was published with ill-will or spite by Defendant

The Washington Times LLC justifying an award of punitive damages.

COUNT 15-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE

83. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-82 as if alleged herein.

84. Defamatory falsehood number 1 was published in conspiracy between by Defendant

Sheehan and Defendant University of Baltimore with knowledge by both of its falsity

or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not, and with spite or ill-will.

85. Defamatory falsehood number 1 has proximately caused damage to Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

86. Defamatory falsehood number 1 was published with ill-will or spite in conspiracy

between Defendant Sheehan and Defendant University of Baltimore justifying an

award of punitive damages against Defendant University of Baltimore.

COUNT 16-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE

87. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-86as if alleged herein.

88. Defamatory falsehood number 2 was published by Defendant Sheehan in conspiracy

with Defendant University of Baltimore with both having knowledge of its falsity or

with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not, and with spite or ill-will.

Case 1:21-cv-02743 Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 12 of 20

89. Defamatory falsehood number 2 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

90. Defamatory falsehood number 2 was published with ill-will or spite in conspiracy

between the University of Baltimore and Defendant Sheehan justifying an award of

punitive damages against the University of Baltimore.

COUNT 17-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE

91. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-90 as if alleged herein.

92. Defamatory falsehood number 3 was published by Defendant Sheehan in conspiracy

with Defendant University of Baltimore with knowledge by both of its falsity or with

reckless disregard of whether it was true or not, and with spite or ill-will.

93. Defamatory falsehood number 3 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

94. Defamatory falsehood number 3 was published with ill-will or spite in conspiracy

between Defendant University of Baltimore and Defendant Sheehan justifying an

award of punitive damages against Defendant University of Baltimore.

COUNT 18-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE

95. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-94 as if alleged herein.

96. Defamatory falsehood number 4 was published by Defendant Sheehan in conspiracy

with Defendant University of Baltimore with knowledge by both of its falsity or with

reckless disregard of whether it was true or not, and with spite or ill-will.

97. Defamatory falsehood number 4 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

Case 1:21-cv-02743 Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 13 of 20

98. Defamatory falsehood number 4 was published with ill-will or spite in conspiracy

between Defendant University of Baltimore and Defendant Sheehan justifying an

award of punitive damages against Defendant University of Baltimore.

COUNT 19-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE

99. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-98 as if alleged herein.

100. Defamatory falsehood number 5 was published by Defendant Sheehan in

conspiracy with Defendant University of Baltimore with knowledge by both of its

falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not, and with spite or illwill.

101. Defamatory falsehood number 5 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

102. Defamatory falsehood number 5 was published with ill-will or spite in conspiracy

between Defendant University of Baltimore and Defendant Sheehan justifying an

award of punitive damages against Defendant University of Baltimore.

COUNT 20-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE

103. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-102 as if alleged herein.

104. Defamatory falsehood number 6 was published by Defendant Sheehan in

conspiracy between Defendant University of Baltimore with knowledge by both of its

falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not, and with spite or illwill.

105. Defamatory falsehood number 6 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

Case 1:21-cv-02743 Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 14 of 20

106. Defamatory falsehood number 6 was published with ill-will or spite in conspiracy

between Defendant University of Baltimore and Defendant Sheehan justifying an

award of punitive damages against the University of Baltimore.

COUNT 21-DEFAMATION-DEFENDANT UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE

107. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-106 as if alleged herein.

108. Defamatory falsehood number 7 was published by Defendant Sheehan in

conspiracy with Defendant University of Baltimore with knowledge by both of its

falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or not, and with spite or illwill.

109. Defamatory falsehood number 7 has proximately caused damage Plaintiff’s

reputation in an amount to be proven at trial.

110. Defamatory falsehood number 7 was published with ill-will or spite in conspiracy

between Defendant University of Baltimore and Defendant Sheehan justifying an

award of punitive damages against the Defendant University of Baltimore.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally

as follows:

a) For general damages as to Counts 1-21 of not less than TWO MILLION

DOLLARS as to each count or such other amount to be proved at trial;

b) For special damages as to Counts 1-21 of not less than ONE MILLION FIVE

DOLLARS as to each count or such other amount to be proved at trial;

Case 1:21-cv-02743 Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 15 of 20

c) For punitive damages against each Defendant as to Counts 1-21, respectively, in

an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than ten times the amount of general and

special damages as to each count, to punish and penalize Defendants and to deter

repetition.

d) For an injunction requiring Defendants to remove all statements adjudicated

defamatory in this case from any and all websites or other digital, social media, or

hard copy platforms in their control;

e) For an injunction requiring Defendants to publish a retraction of the statements

found defamatory including a retraction published in The Washington Times;

f) For attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in this action; and,

g) For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand a jury trial of all issues so triable in this cause pursuant to Rule 38

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Date: October 17, 2021

Respectfully submitted,