DSS violates Court Order, denies British consul, Ezeife access to Nnamdi Kanu – Lawyer

 DSS violates Court Order, denies British consul, Ezeife access to Nnamdi Kanu – Lawyer

Ifeanyi Ejiofor, the Lead Counsel to the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has claimed that the Department of State Services (DSS) denied the British Consul and Dr Chukwuemeka Ezeife access to his client on Thursday.

He made these claims in a statement sent to Press.

According to Ejiofor, the court had on October 21, “expanded the number of persons that could visit Our Client on any of the designated days scheduled for his routine visit.”

He also noted that Kanu has been authorized to have three persons of his choice to visit him, explaining that the list was no longer exclusive to lawyers and family members.

The statement read: “In line with this Order of Court, we forwarded the list of names scheduled to visit Our Client on Monday, 25th October, 2021, which included Attorney Bruce Fein – our Client’s International Attorney and Legal Representative in the United States of America.

“Attorney Fein arrived Nigeria from the United States of America to witness the Court proceedings of the 21st Day of October, 2021, and also utilize the opportunity of the visit to interface with his Client – Onyendu Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

“Unknown to us, a rude shock awaited us at the DSS. Upon arrival at the DSS Headquarters on Monday, 25th October, 2021, for the scheduled routine visit, the detaining authority did not stop at keeping us waiting for well over two hours, but thereafter specifically told us that no foreigner, including Bruce Fein would be allowed to visit Our Client, and as such, he would not participate in the visit.

“The renowned International Constitutional Human Rights Lawyer was not only disappointed with the Authority concerned, but was shocked at the brazen manner in which the Nigerian Court Orders are flouted with impunity by those whose primary mandate is to protect and preserve these Laws and maintain Order.

“Attorney Bruce Fein, consequently left the premises of the DSS visibly broken. Apparently, he has gathered enough to feed the International Community upon his return to the United States.

“Today was the turn of the British Consul to experience what the civilized society may refer to as the height of abnormality in the System. The innocent woman who flew all the way from Lagos on this special diplomatic engagement, was denied access to Our Client, and told that she is not welcomed for the visit because she’s a foreigner.

“His Excellency, Dr. CHUKWUEMEKA EZEIFE who was denied access to the Court room at the last Court sitting was also denied access to our Client today without offering any reason(s). Height of impunity indeed!

“It is important to point out here that the Order of Court with regard to the number of persons and class of persons allowed to visit our Client, NEVER RESTRICTED THEM TO NIGERIANS ONLY.

“It is more so that this clarification was made by His Lordship, following our specific complaint to the Court that Attorney Bruce Fein was not only denied access to our Client on two occasions at the DSS Headquarters, but was not allowed inside the courtroom on 21st October, 2021.

“If His Lordship’s intention was to restrict foreigners from visiting our Client, the Court would have simply made it clear while responding to our application for clarification.

“Though we have promptly filed another application for the transfer of Our Client to the correctional center predicated on entirely new set of facts, it is now crystal clear to the World that if the DSS is allowed to remain the custodian of our Client, there shall certainly be gross denial of fair hearing and fair trial in these proceedings.

“We will equally be initiating contempt proceedings against the Head of the DSS for this gross violation of Court Order. Order of the Court must be obeyed regardless of the status of the person(s) involved or the Agency affected by the Order.

“Even though the DSS has a history of flouting Court Orders with impunity, we will pursue for the Court to step in, in this case and protect the sanctity of its Order(s). Enough is enough!”

Ejiofor further appealed to Kanu’s followers to “remain calm as we explore all legal remedies available to our Client in the circumstance of this breach.”

NIGERIA's State High Court at Ibadan, Oyo State Declares Agitation for Self Determination Legal!

 NIGERIA's State High Court at Ibadan, Oyo State Declares Agitation for Self Determination Legal! 

Justice Ladiran Akintola of Oyo State High Court on Friday made a declaration that campaigns for self-determination by people in Nigeria is legal and a fundamental human right. Delivering judgement in a suit filed against the Federal Government by Chief Sunday Adeyemo, popularly called Sunday Igboho, Justice Akintola said with the combined provisions of international and domestic laws, Nigerians, including Igboho, had the unquestionable and inalienable fundamental right to campaign and agitate for self-determination.

The judge also awarded N20 billion to Igboho against the Federal Government as aggravated damages over the invasion and destruction of his home by operatives of the State Security Service (SSS) on July 1, 2021. Respondents in the suit were Attorney General of the Federation, the State Security Service (SSS) and Director, State Security Service, Oyo State.

Justice Akintola granted all the 16 reliefs sought by Igboho in the suit filed on his behalf by his lawyer, Chief Yomi Aliyu, SAN.

The reliefs include: “A declaration that the Federal Government’s resolve to prevent him from propagating his belief in ‘Yoruba Nation’ in association with others was against his fundamental rights to freedom of thought, conscience and association.”

Specifically, Igboho asked the court to declare that he and his Yoruba indigenous people had unquestionable and/or inalienable fundamental right to peacefully campaign and seek self-determination of Yoruba tribe in Nigeria and lobby the legislature to amend the CFRN, 1999 as guaranteed by Article 20 of African Charter on Human and Peoples Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Laws of the Federation, 2010, and Articles 3, 4, 7, & 18 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous People made at its 107th Plenary Meeting of Thursday 13th September, 2007, thereby insulating campaign for self-determination from criminal culpability.

Other reliefs sought by Igboho are: “A declaration that the respondents resolve in preventing the applicant from propagating his belief in association with other like-minds in creating a Yoruba Nation and/or Oduduwa Republic for his Indigenous Yoruba People and hunting him with gun with a view to arresting him dead or alive when he had not called for war in achieving same was against his fundamental rights to freedom of thought, conscience and association since campaign for self-determination is recognised by Nigerian law and international treaties of organizations to which Nigeria belongs.

“A declaration that apart from violating the fundamental right of the applicant to fair hearing, it is unequitable and unfair for the 2nd & 3rd respondents to exhibit guns, ammunition and other dangerous weapons and incriminating documents in public and claim that same belong to the applicant when their officers in actual fact shot their way into the house of the applicant situate, lying and being at Igboho Villa, 1, Dalag Street, Off Soka Bus Stop, Soka Area, off Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, Ibadan, without subjecting themselves and their convoy of vehicles to prior search by the applicant who neither signed any inventory nor search warrant containing inventory to that effect. 

“A declaration that the media trial of the applicant by the 2nd & 3rd Respondents in exhibiting prohibited and/ or illegal items as Applicant’s before the press and live television is usurpation of judicial power reserved by CFRN, 1999, for courts and violently violates the fundamental right of the applicant to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law recognised y the said constitution and properly constituted for that purpose.

“A declaration that invading and or blocking the assets of the applicant and putting no debit order on his bank accounts is a violation of his fundamental right to own property and wealth guaranteed by CFRN, 1999, and Article 21 of African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Laws of Federation, 2010.

“An order of injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, privies and associates in other security forces and or anybody acting on their behalf and or instructions from arresting, detaining, molesting, harassing and/or in any way interfering with his right to personal liberty, freedom of movement and peaceful enjoyment of his property without fear of the invasion of his home by the respondents.”

Igboho also demanded that the court should compel the respondents jointly and severally to pay him N500.5 billion made up of the sum of N500 million as special damages for the damage done to his car and residence at Soka, Ibadan and the sum of N500 billion being exemplary and/ or aggravated damages for malicious invasion of his Soka residence.

He also asked the court to declare that the damage of his property was a violation of his fundamental right to peacefully own property and wealth as well. On the invasion of the home of the activist, the court held that “the applicant led credible and unchallenged evidence against the respondents. The respondents did not deny the invasion of the applicant’s residence, rather they admitted the invasion on mere allegation of suspicion.

“Suspicion cannot take the place of law, no matter how strong it is. The ugly show of crude fire power by the respondents or their agents, leaving death carnage and destruction behind should be condemned.”

The court further held that the invasion of Igboho’s residence in the middle of the night without a warrant violated his fundamental human rights to property, life and family under section 35 (i) (a-c) of the 1999 constitution.

“In the absence of any evidence that Nigeria is in a state of war, the action and overzealous conduct of the agents of the second and third respondents should be condemned in strongest possible terms. If the identities of the agents of the second and third respondents were known, they would have been made liable for their action,” the judge said.

Justice Akintola further held that the second and third respondents were silent on how the arms and ammunition allegedly paraded in Abuja were recovered from Igboho’s residence, noting that, “It is difficult to believe that the arms and ammunition were recovered from his residence because there is no evidence to that effect.”

Justice Akintola added that the judgement would serve as a lesson to government agencies who are fond of infringing on the fundamental human rights of citizens and further awarded N2 million as cost to Igboho. In his reaction after the judgment, Igboho’s counsel, Alliu, SAN, said the judgement was a victory for democracy and the rule of law, adding that it had further proved that the court is the last hope of the common man.

“We now see that we have to go back to the motto of the NBA, and that is exactly what happened today, which means, where there is a damage, there is a remedy. We can see the language used by my learned lord, Justice Ladiran Akintola, and you heard what I said in court that today’s case is history and lawyers yet unborn will refer to it as you are referring to previous cases,” Aliyu said.

The Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mr Abubakar Malami (SAN), on Friday, announced the decision of the Federal Government to appeal the judgment. While speaking on the development in an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) in Abuja. Malami said that efforts were already being made to commence the process of appealing the judgment.

 (Saturday Tribune)

Abubakar Malami's Press Release Of Calumny Against IPOB And Nnamdi Kanu

 Abubakar Malami's Press Release Of Calumny Against IPOB And Nnamdi Kanu

The Nigerian government's administration has nosedived South, at the full glare of the global community. This is due to the high level of nepotism, religious and ethnic intolerance that have instigated the economic progress and human development to run on parallel opposites. Administrative competence and leadership trust are bedrocks for a country's long-term sustainability and socio-economic stability, which the Nigerian government and leadership so terribly lack.

The Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Abubakar Malami, is a prime example of gross leadership incompetence and administrative humiliation. His recent press release which centered on lies and fallacies, has demonstrated to the world, the genuine basis for the Indigenous People of Biafra's (IPOB's) constant demand for the restoration of their God-given nation to enable them live as free people, free of ethnic and religious divisions.

The allegation that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is the self-proclaimed leader of IPOB, is the first of the shameful news briefings. This is completely unacceptable since, contrary to what Abubakar Malami claimed, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was chosen by the people. The people of Biafra have defied treachery and demonstrated to the rest of the world that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is a leader who values his people and is committed to the rule of law. He talks with reason, and the people of Biafra obey his words without disputation. He has broken several barriers. Abubakar Malami also falsely accused Mazi Nnamdi Kanu of waging a subversive campaign against the Nigerian government. This is a calculated ploy to unfairly play the subjugation dice and deny equity a chance of survival. The deliberate usage of the word subversive, has no bearing on the policies and demands of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu's IPOB. He has consciously requested that Biafrans' civil rights be liberated from the Nigerian experiment by a United Nations' supervised Referendum. The quest for self-determination has had nothing to do with the term "subversive campaign" against the Nigerian state, as Abubakar Malami cruelly and uneducatedly called it. All indigenous nationalities and peoples have the right to self-determination and to request a UN-supervised referendum. Their intents should not be misunderstood or stigmatized but rather, they should be maintained and allowed to flourish in order to foster peaceful coexistence among people.

The level of nepotism that is in full swing against the people of Biafra can also be seen in Abubakar Malami's calumny speech referring to the unjust proscription of indigenous citizens of Biafra as terrorists on 20th September 2017, who were forcibly amalgamated into the Nigerian experiment as territory because of their demand for self-determination under a United Nations supervised referendum. Even in their fight for freedom from colonial imperialism and the Nigerian state, the Indigenous People of Biafra, led by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, who are residing in many countries around the world, have demonstrated to be peace-loving people. The Nigerian government's proscription of Biafrans in September 2017 was a calculated move to justify the planned genocide targeted against Biafrans by the Nigerian armed forces, at the instance of President Muhammadu Buhari's administration.

Governors of States in different regions have disputed the idea that IPOB is responsible for the burning of police stations and the killing of officers in Nigeria, blaming the attacks on political state players, who are hell-bent on making the country ungovernable.

Finally, after his abnormal bail condition before the Federal High Court in Abuja, Abubakar Malami has shamefully declined to tell the world the truth regarding Mazi Nnamdi Kanu's being in exile. Malami kept quiet about Kanu's escape from assassination by the Nigerian military in his home on 14th September 2017, during which twenty-eight (28) unarmed Biafran people were gruesomely slaughtered. Despite the baseless charges of supposed treasonable crime, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu never defied the Nigerian government's kangaroo bail restrictions and has sworn categorically, to defeat them in their own court. The leader of IPOB has yet to be found guilty of any crime by the government in their own court.

The Buhari led administration must recognize that time and patience are running out and that the people of Biafra may not be able to hold out much longer. Self-determination is not a crime under any known law and it must be honored in order to eliminate the colonialists' fake nationhood boundary lines. Nigeria is an experiment and the indigenous peoples who wish to be free must be offered actual freedom of their dreams not just flag independence.

Written by Anioke Chukwunonso

Edited by Domendu Udochukwu

For Family Writers Press international

The Political Miscalculations And Stonewalling

 The Political Miscalculations And Stonewalling

It has been four tortuous years. It is exactly four years 10 days plus, September 14th 2017, when the lawless murderous and jihadist Nigerian army, made an attempt on Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s life that also took the lives of more than twenty eight (28) Biafrans, prematurely. Like it was in 2017, election will soon come up in  Anambra State as fixed for Saturday 6th of November 2021. The same issue of no election is about to happen, going by the channel at which the Indigenous People of Biafra's Head of Directorate of State (IPOB/HDOS), Mazi Chika Edoziem, has insisted that there will be sit at home protest, despite the pressure from neophytes and vassal politicians in the South-East that are parading as political leaders and juggernauts.

Here are the chain of events that will follow in the coming days, weeks and months, and some are already playing out:

1. There are three types of people in Biafraland. The majority that hate what Britain has been doing using their proxy, the Fulani. They have taken side against the oppressors. The next group is the endowed leaders sidelined for their unwillingness to execute the Fulani oligarchs master plan. Their loyalty was questionable, hence were relegated to the background. They have chosen to be tacit. They pretend to be neutral to the chagrin of the majority when it is obvious that neutrality in such a situation is an alignment with the oppressors. This is especially true in many ways because they share a commonality with the last group, which is a desire for continuing the status quo through the instrument of election. This is worrisome course. There exists, the remnants installed under pledge of allegiance. This last group knows how to manipulate the second group as a bridge to blackmail the majority emotionally into submission. They will motivate them to move in solidarity as can be seen through appearances in court. The aim is to get close and in due season, become tools for election participation. It is not lost on them how ineffectual election is but it does seem to somehow make them relevant. They are hungry for relevance.

2. The main objective of the extraordinary rendition of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu in connivance with the British, Kenyan governments as well as Anambra politicians, was to put him out of circulation. The attempt on his life in 2017 did not succeed but his disappearance paved the way for a shock doctrine. The leadership of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), was consumed by the effort to steady the ship and not let it sink while in 2017, they assumed that they could grant him bail on stringent conditions or even kill him if he could not be reined in but now they are afraid to kill him. This is only due to the fear of IPOB's capability to inflict maximum damage. They have therefore, settled for lengthy detention to buy them time to conduct elections, quite unlike in 2017 though, when the sensitization of the uselessness of election had permeated the sub consciousnesses of everyone. Aside that, the ability of IPOB leadership to enforce the sit-at-home protest, was no longer in doubt.

3. Immediately they granted Mazi Nnamdi Kanu bail, they made an effort at negotiation, thinking that he would compromise. It suddenly turned to bloodletting once they could not bring him to accept the unsustainable injustice that littered the geographical space called Nigeria. However, the use of bloodletting has become an ironclad means of perpetual misrule and it is unworkable. The freedom seekers are becoming loud, bold and confrontational day by day.

4. The last straw they will grab, having failed in their power grabbing murderous instinct, is the Taqqiya-based agreement. This will be intended to douse tension. It will help them to seek a compromise. Any favourable compromise that will guarantee them the leash. Just as the Daily Manna Devotional of Saturday 23rd October 2021 pointed out, you cannot trust the devil to keep any agreement. No matter the game plan this time, everything will definitely end in a political miscalculation and futile stonewalling.

Written by Chibueze Daniel

Edited by Onyebuchi Eucharia O.

For Family Writers Press International

Nigeria, The Crime Scene at the Heart of Africa - The Economist

 Nigeria, The Crime Scene at the Heart of Africa - The Economist 

Little more than six decades ago, as Nigeria was nearing independence, even those who were soon to govern Africa’s largest country had their doubts about whether it would hold together. British colonists had drawn a border around land that was home to more than 250 ethnic groups. Obafemi Awolowo, a politician of that era, evoked Metternich, fretting that “Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression.”

The early years of independence seemed to prove him right. Coup followed coup. Ethnic pogroms helped spark a civil war that cost 1m lives, as the south-eastern region calling itself Biafra tried to break away and was ruthlessly crushed. Military rule was the norm until 1999. Despite this inauspicious start, Nigeria is now a powerhouse. Home to one in six sub-Saharan Africans, it is the continent’s most boisterous democracy. Its economy, the largest, generates a quarter of Africa’s gdp. Nollywood makes more titles than any other country’s film industry bar Bollywood. Three of sub-Saharan Africa’s four fintech “unicorns” (startups valued at more than $1bn) are Nigerian.

Why, then, do most young Nigerians want to emigrate? One reason is that they are scared. Jihadists are carving out a caliphate in the north-east; gangs of kidnappers are terrorising the north-west; the fire of Biafran secessionism has been rekindled in the oil-rich south-east. The violence threatens not just Nigeria’s 200m people, but also the stability of the entire region that surrounds them.

Readers who do not follow Nigeria closely may ask: what’s new? Nigeria has been corrupt and turbulent for decades. What has changed of late, though, is that jihadism, organised crime and political violence have grown so intense and widespread that most of the country is sliding towards ungovernability. In the first nine months of 2021 almost 8,000 people were directly killed in various conflicts. Hundreds of thousands more have perished because of hunger and disease caused by fighting. More than 2m have fled their homes.

The jihadist threat in the north-east has metastasised. A few years ago, an area the size of Belgium was controlled by Boko Haram, a group of zealots notorious for enslaving young girls. Now, Boko Haram is being supplanted by an affiliate of Islamic State that is equally brutal but more competent, and so a bigger danger to Nigeria. In the south-east, demagogues are stirring up ethnic grievances and feeding the delusion that one group, the Igbos, can walk off with all the country’s oil, the source of about half of government revenues. President Muhammadu Buhari has hinted that Biafran separatism will be dealt with as ruthlessly now as it was half a century ago.

Meanwhile, across wide swathes of Nigeria, a collapse in security and state authority has allowed criminal gangs to run wild. In the first nine months of this year some 2,200 people were kidnapped for ransom, more than double the roughly 1,000 abducted in 2020. Perhaps a million children are missing school for fear that they will be snatched.

Two factors help explain Nigeria’s increasing instability: a sick economy and a bumbling government. Slow growth and two recessions have made Nigerians poorer, on average, each year since oil prices fell in 2015. Before covid-19, fully 40% of them were below Nigeria’s extremely low poverty line of about $1 a day. If Nigeria’s 36 states were stand-alone countries, more than one-third would be categorised by the World Bank as “low-income” (less than $1,045 a head). Poverty combined with stagnation tends to increase the risk of civil conflict.

Economic troubles are compounded by a government that is inept and heavy-handed. Mr Buhari, who was elected in 2015, turned an oil shock into a recession by propping up the naira and barring many imports in the hope this would spur domestic production. Instead he sent annual food inflation soaring above 20%. He has failed to curb corruption, which breeds resentment. Many Nigerians are furious that they see so little benefit from the country’s billions of petrodollars, much of which their rulers have squandered or stolen. Many politicians blame rival ethnic or religious groups, claiming they have taken more than their fair share. This wins votes, but makes Nigeria a tinderbox.

When violence erupts, the government does nothing or cracks heads almost indiscriminately. Nigeria’s army is mighty on paper. But many of its soldiers are “ghosts” who exist only on the payroll, and much of its equipment is stolen and sold to insurgents. The army is also stretched thin, having been deployed to all of Nigeria’s states. The police are understaffed, demoralised and poorly trained. Many supplement their low pay by robbing the public they have sworn to protect.

To stop the slide towards lawlessness, Nigeria’s government should make its own forces obey the law. Soldiers and police who murder or torture should be prosecuted. That no one has been held accountable for the slaughter of perhaps 15 peaceful demonstrators against police abuses in Lagos last year is a scandal. The secret police should stop ignoring court orders to release people who are being held illegally. This would not just be morally right, but also practical: young men who see or experience state brutality are more likely to join extremist groups.

Things don’t have to fall apart

Second, Nigeria needs to beef up its police. Niger state, for instance, has just 4,000 officers to protect 24m people. Local cops would be better at stopping kidnappings and solving crimes than the current federal force, which is often sent charging from one trouble spot to another. Money could come from cutting wasteful spending by the armed forces on jet fighters, which are not much use for guarding schools. Britain and America, which help train Nigeria’s army, could also train detectives. Better policing could let the army withdraw from areas where it is pouring fuel on secessionist fires.

The biggest barrier to restoring security is not a lack of ideas, nor of resources. It is the complacency of Nigeria’s cosseted political elite—safe in their guarded compounds and the well-defended capital. Without urgent action, Nigeria may slip into a downward spiral from which it will struggle to emerge.

The Economist Magazine

IPOB: Malami lied, Court documents show 15 suspects charged with burning Oba of Lagos palace are Yoruba

 IPOB: Malami lied, Court documents show 15 suspects charged with burning Oba of Lagos palace are Yoruba

Contrary to claims by Attorney General of the federation (AGF) Abubakar Malami that the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) burnt the palace of the Oba of Lagos, the 15 suspects charged with the crime are of Yoruba origin, court documents seen by Peoples Gazette show. 

Mr Malami on Friday blamed IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu for instigating the group and its security wing, Eastern Security Network (ESN), for the attacks in Lagos and other parts of the country during #EndSARS protest.

Specifically, the AGF alleged that Mr Kanu who is currently being tried by the Buhari regime used the End-police brutality protest that was held in October 2020 as a cover to attack and loot the Oba’s palace. 

However, court documents with the charge number CR/MISC/ES/L/002020 seen by The Gazette revealed that all the suspects charged by the Nigerian Police are Yorubas.

In the aftermath of the attack on the Lagos monarch’s palace, the police brought 15 suspects before a Lagos State Magistrate Court sitting at Ogba, in the Ikeja magisterial district, with charges bordering on theft and felony.

The defendants are Messrs Eniafe Olawale, Gbenga Ajayi, Lamidi Rafiu, Oladunmoye Ayodeji, Soliu Tajudeen, Ahmed Olayinka, Samuel Damilola, Wasiu Grewa, Habib Salit, Nurudeen Yusuf, Safiu Quadri Lekan, Afolabi lukuman and Yusuf Babalola with charges bordering on theft and felony.

Before Mr Malami’s allegations on Friday, IPOB had been accused by federal government of inflicting destruction across the South-East. Government facilities, especially schools, police stations, prisons and electoral office buildings, have been destroyed. 

IPOB have denied all these allegations, the governors of South East have also said the killings and destruction going on in South East is politically motivated and have nothing to do with IPOB. Anambra state governor, Willie Obiana accused desperate politicians of trying to use violence to take over the state.

There were also criminal arsons around the region blamed on IPOB during #EndSARS by AGF, but the widespread destruction witnessed in Lagos, Abuja and other cities outside the South-East were caused by locals in those cities.

The suspects that burnt the Oba of Lagos residence were captured on videos that spread on social media, with some narrators easily recognising the suspects as Yoruba living in neighbourhoods around Lagos Island.

IPOB is an Igbo organisation whose operations have been restricted to the South-East region. Yorubas in the South-West are not known to belong to the secessionist group seeking an independent Biafra nation.  The accusation of AGF against IPOB is not factual and therefore should be disregarded.

Article from Gazette 

Re-edited by Family Writers Press International. 

Malami and The Outdated Politics of Divide and Conquer

 Malami and The Outdated Politics of Divide and Conquer 

The Nigerian Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, remains a kindergarten in contemporary politics. How really on earth did this man actually get to the position he presently occupies, is disappointedly embarrassing on justice related issues evolving in the country, against the indigenous people.

His shameful antecedents and politics of divide and conquer against a well-informed people of Biafra and Oduduwa, can be best described as outdated politics of 1960s. Abubakar Malami needs a holistic upgrade in his chosen profession. He has to humbly stay updated on the intricacies and intrigues involved in today's politics. For a Nigerian Federal Justice Minister and Attorney General to be shamelessly saying that the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), invaded the palace of a Yoruba traditional ruler during the 2020 Nationwide EndSars Protest, is most callous, childish and very outdated tricks of 60s.

Biafra and Oduduwa joint Rally in London

What does this man really take this generation for? Uninformed lots? This statement forms part of the outdated tricks these opportunists adapted in the nineteen sixties which worked in their favor. They should however, note that this generation is very far ahead of them and are digitally inclined. Both Biafrans and Oduduwas have since, exceeded this stage of crudity that the Fulanis' driven "divide and rule" system that the British bequeathed to them. The Oduduwa and the Biafra people are undoubtedly, more united now than ever.

Biafra and Oduduwa joint Rally

Abubakar Malami should be clearly told in case he has really lost sight of reality, despite his acclaimed position, that his pitiably petty craftiness of divide and rule tactics are bound to hit the rocks in the current dispensation. It may have worked for them in times past against the Igbos and their brothers/sisters in the coastal region but not now anymore. Today, the Igbos are working so hard to erase that divisive syndrome and enmity the Fulani oligarchs installed between the South-East region and its own people in the South-South region. By the grace of God, that barrier of the evil seed of hatred, will be thing of the past.

 

The Oduduwa and Biafra people are today, wiser and cannot fall for the Fulani led Nigerian government's analog trap of divide and rule politics. The Attorney General should be tutored in the very art intelligent politicking and fully acquaint himself with the knowledge that he is dealing with sophisticated generation of brilliant brains. This his adventure is self-defeatist, it will most assuredly be his waterloo, alongside his masters.  This is new generation with smartphone, that old tricks won’t work with us.

God bless Biafra Nation 

God bless Oduduwa Nation. 

Written by Emeka Gift

For Family Writers Press International.

Terrorism Charges: You Can’t Try Me In Nigeria, says Kanu

Terrorism Charges: You Can’t Try Me In Nigeria, says Kanu

Nnamdi Kanu

Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has asked the Federal High Court to recuse itself from the case of terrorism and treasonable felony proffered against him on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction to try his case.

The Government had amended earlier charges brought before the court, presenting a seven-count charge against him.

Kanu insisted that the trial ought not to take place at all since most of the crimes were committed in the United Kingdom, where the Court has no Jurisdiction over him since according to him, the UK has its Judicial system.

This was stated in his notice of preliminary objections filed by his lawyers.

The following are excerpts from the preliminary objections his lawyers filed.

“…That I know as a fact that the United Kingdom (of which London is the capital), is a sovereign state under International Municipal Law and has municipal laws punishing criminal offenses.

2) That I also know as a fact that jurisdiction is extrinsic to adjudication. It is conferred on a court, aliunde. It is not intrinsic.

3) That I know that as the elements necessary to constitute incitement in the alleged several broadcasts of the defendant/applicant occurred in London, United Kingdom, and not in Nigeria, the court in Nigeria has no jurisdiction to try the defendant/applicant on any charge founded on any such alleged incitement, even if the defendant/applicant enters within the geographical boundaries of Nigeria.

4) That I also know as a matter of fact that the alleged offenses for which the defendant was charged, do not constitute terrorism offenses in London, United Kingdom, where they were allegedly committed.

5) That I am further aware that there is an obligation on the Attorney General of the Federation to maintain international co-operation for compliance with International Treaties on terrorism.

6) That the defendant was abducted from Kenya and consequently extraordinarily rendered to Nigeria, without firstly subjecting him to extradition proceedings in Kenya; I know as a fact that this is a violation of all known international conventions and treaties on extradition.

7) That prosecuting the defendant on the 7-count amended charge would amount to allowing the complainants to benefit from their illegality and wrongdoing

8) That I am aware that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands, and no party should be allowed to benefit from his wrongdoing.

9) That I know as a matter of fact, that the extraordinary rendition of the defendant robs the Honourable Court of the requisite jurisdiction of trying the defendant on counts 4, 5,,6 and 7 of the Amended Charge.

10) That counts 1,,2, and 3 of the Amended Charge were brought under a non-existent law.

11) That count 3 of the Amended Charge relates to an offense allegedly committed in Ubuluisiuzor, in Ihiala Local Government Area of Anambra State, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.

12) That I know as a matter of fact that an offense can only be tried by a court exercising jurisdiction over the place or area where the alleged offense was committed.

13) That counts 5,,6, and 7 of the Amended Charge do not disclose an offense known to law.

14) That there is no proof of evidence attached to the Amended Charge filed against the defendant.

15) That even the purported proof of evidence to be relied upon by the prosecution, does not disclose any prima facie case against the defendant.

16) That from the list of exhibits and witnesses attached to the Amended Charge, there is nothing relating to or linking the defendant to the 7-count charge, particularly counts 4, 5,,6, and 7 thereof.

17) That no final pronouncement has been made on the purported proscription of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), as the said purported proscription is a subject matter of appeal in Appeal No: CA/A/214/2018, pending before the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal.

18) That the defendant/applicant cannot be arraigned anew or tried for an offense when the judgment that made a pronouncement on the instrument constituting a state of affairs as such an offense, is the subject matter of an appeal.

19) That it will be most unjust, painful, wicked, and unfair for the applicant to undergo the rigors of a full trial, when the Amended Charge as constituted, does not disclose a prima facie case against him.

20) That there is no ground for this honorable court to proceed with the trial against the applicant in the circumstance of this case.

21) That the court has the powers and a duty to stop a prosecution which on the facts creates abuse and injustice.

22) That it will be in the best interest of justice if the present 7-Count Amended Charge is struck out and or dismissed.

Can’t, therefore, asked the Court whether it has “the requisite jurisdiction to try the defendant on the 7- count amended charge, given the extraordinary rendition of the said defendant/applicant;

    b) Whether the honorable court has the jurisdiction to try the defendant/applicant for alleged acts constituted wholly by elements that occurred within the geographical space of a foreign sovereign nation and outside the jurisdiction of the court.

    c) Whether the defendant/applicant can be prosecuted for allegedly belonging to a proscribed organization when the purported proscription of the organization is the subject of appeal in appeal no: CA/A/214/2018, pending at the court of appeal, Abuja division?

    d) Whether the information as laid under counts 1,,2, and 3 of the amended charge is not founded under a non-existed law?

    e) Whether the radio broadcasts allegedly made by the defendant/applicant constitutes an offense of treasonable felony as envisaged under section 41 (c) of the criminal code Act, CAP C.38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004?

    f) Whether the information contained in counts 5,6 and 7 of the amended discloses the commission of any offense known to law?

    g) Whether the proof of evidence in support of the 7- count amended charge discloses a prima facie case against the defendant/applicant.

“We respectfully urge your Lordship to decline jurisdiction to entertain the instant Amended Charge, as the alleged offenses contained therein, were allegedly committed wholly in London, United Kingdom, and Anambra State, outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, ”he argued through his lawyers.

“The Honourable Court is further urged to strike out and/or dismiss the counts of the charge which are incompetent and brought under unknown provisions of the laws.

“We further urge this Honourable Court to hold that the purported proof of evidence to be relied upon by the prosecution did not disclose any prima facie case against the defendant, that will invoke the power of this Court to set down the case for trial.

“The 7-count amended charge filed by the Prosecution, we respectfully submit, is not only as naked and empty as a worthless paper, but not founded on existing laws, and the court is respectfully urged to, upon a meritorious consideration of the grounds upon which the objection is predicated, and argument in support thereof, to dismiss in its entirety this seven-count amended charge and accordingly discharge and acquit the defendant/applicant on those 7-count charges.”

The trial Judge, Hon. Justice  Binta Nyako, adjourned the case to November 10.

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,