 Our welcome back now. The federal government expressed its anger over a plan by the United Kingdom to offer asylum to persecuted, in quote, members of the indigenous people of Biafra, Aipur, and the movement for the actualization of the sovereign state of Biafra, Masab. The Minister of Information and Culture, Alay Mohamed, stated that the plan was disrespectful to Nigeria as a nation. However, social-political groups like the Middle Belt Forum, the Ohanezen-Diibo, the Fenifere, and the Pan-Najid Delta Forum are supporting the asylum offered by the UK. Now joining us through this course, these are Alay Ejimako, a council for the indigenous people of Biafra, Aipur, and of course, Honourable Chukonone Okekeke, a public affairs analyst, will start with you, barished Alay Ejimako. Let me just get your candid opinion concerning this issue of offering asylum to Aipur. Inasmuch as the Aipur members have come out to say that asylum is not what they seek exactly. To me? Yes, to you. Go ahead, yes. Yes, okay. Well, yeah, okay. By way of introduction, my name is Alay Ejimako, special council to the indigenous people of Biafra, and as a man they can stream later. Anyway, your question on the asylum policy of the UK government is very topical. I see the new policy as a dramatic shift from what it was in 1967, back in the day when the initial steps were taken to form the Republic of Biafra. The policy of the British at that time, if you go into the archives, was dramatically different from what it is today as represented by this recent asylum or recently released asylum document. So to that extent is a dramatic shift, a dramatic diplomatic event, which I believe generally goes to lending credibility and legitimacy to the struggle for the restoration of Biafra. See, we're talking about an IPOB here that the Nigerian government declared a terrorist organization in 2017. And here you have a foreign government, a world power, a nation that is very friendly to Nigeria and the former colonial power in Nigeria taking a diametrically opposite position. If IPOB is indeed a terrorist organization, terrorists are never considered for asylum, they are considered for arrest. UK has zero tolerance policy for terrorism. So the way I see it is that this thing goes beyond the mayor issue of granting asylum to IPOB members to recognition or diplomatic recognition of the legitimacy of their position on restoration of Biafra through a referendum. Let me even butt in here now, Barista Ejimako, the issue of referendum rights now. Invariably you're saying that the United Kingdom has recognized IPOB in as much as the federal government has labeled that particular group terrorist. So specifically referendum to stay in Nigeria or not to stay in Nigeria, in specific terms, what exactly does the IPOB want? The IPOB declared from the outset through the very mouth of its prime leader Masinandekano that it simply wants the federal government to succumb to its request to conduct referendum. Peaceful referendum to find out whether the peoples of the former Republic of Biafra still wish to continue to be Nigerians. That is simple. And it is saying that a referendum is not a call for war. The referendum is a legitimate tool, is a legitimate mechanism for determination of important political questions such as partition of a nation or such like. It was used before in Nigeria, back in 1963, the three federating regions in Nigeria resorted to the use of referendum to create a fourth federating region then called Midwest. So that one they called the plebiscite, but it's the same thing. And it was used by the Britain, British and the French to determine the status of the former Southern Cameroon that used to be part of Nigeria. It was a referendum that carved that part of Nigeria into Cameroon and then carved the former Southern province of Northern Cameroon into Nigeria. So it's not an illegal or an illegitimate political phenomenon. It's legal, it's historical, and I will be saying the way Nigeria is, it's not very comfortable for the former peoples of the former Biafra. So let us use this method. I mean whether they wish to continue to be Nigerians or they want to pull out. That is all. Alright, so basically right now the UK in its wisdom is granting asylum. Most of the times asylums are granted to people who feel are often persecuted in their own land. Would you say that for the IPOB in the face of seeming marginalization or claims by that particular group? Well, yes, I have reviewed the document upon which the US policy is based. It was quite exhaustive, scholarly, and it exhibited a very deep understanding of the Nigerian Biafranconundrum. You see, the basis for grand asylum is when someone can, you know, show that he has where founded for persecution or that he possesses a political opinion that his home government is seeking to punish by means of punishment of some sort. So in this very instance of the IPOB, IPOB or the British government has recognized that IPOB members in fact do possess a political opinion that the Nigerian government is seeking to punish by means of punishment of some sort. And that political opinion is simply that they want to pull out of the federation of Nigeria. So going forward, what do we see or are we going to hear from the IPOB group anytime soon? Well, anyway, first of all, on behalf of my clients, I wish to express my profound gratitude to the British authorities for recognizing that my clients do possess a political opinion that qualifies them to seek for political asylum in the UK on the basis of persecution in Nigeria. Because I have a firsthand experience. I defended a lot of them in court in Nigeria here. But do you know that since 2015, when IPOB members began to be arrested, none of them has been convicted of any criminal offense up to this date? Not of terrorism, not of anything, not of cessation. Cessation is not even an offense. I don't know what they are charging them for. So, I mean, people are not selling. That seems through the whole thing that it is not prosecution, but it is persecution. All right, thank you so much. Yeah, thank you. All right, thank you so much. That was a loyal Jamaican council for the indigenous people of Biafra. Something the federal government said just yesterday against the voucher of the fact that IPOB is not only prescribed but also designated as a terrorist organization here in Nigeria. It says the UK's decision is disrespectful of Nigeria as a nation. It went on to say the decision amounts to sabotage and the fight against terrorism and generally undermining Nigeria's security. Lai Muhammad also said it is not only unconscionable, it is inexplicable. All right, we also have a public affairs analyst joining us at Chukunone Okerikei. Good evening to you. Honorable Chukunone Okerikei, public affairs analyst, many thanks for joining us on Plus Politics. Thank you. All right, you have heard the position of the federal government on this particular discourse. What are your thoughts exactly? The federal government is saying that it is the respectful, that's the decision of the UK and it also undermines or sabotages the fight against terrorism in Nigeria. As a matter of fact, United Kingdom is a sovereign entity. They don't need to take permission from any country to do what they're supposed to do. They have their embassy in Nigeria here and they have a high commission here, together with M-15 and M-16 members that are part of the British High Commission in Nigeria. They are taking their time. They have done due diligence in trying to understand the basics of why I-POP and MSOL has gone on a socialist stance. The 56-page document which is being housed in the Home Office, United Kingdom, did a due diligence, understanding the very basic facts that freedom of any particular group is a basic and fundamental human rights. Having understood the stance of I-POP and MSOL, they decided that the tug of terrorist organization that the federal government of Nigeria gave to I-POP definitely is a wrong move. What the federal government has succeeded in doing for I-POP is internationalization of the issue of whatever they are gestating for. And now that it has gone to the level of international community, the next thing is we see other countries around the world trying to identify with United Kingdom's stance because they have allies. As long as United Kingdom has taken that move, America will start trying to look at it. Alright Mr. Okereke, another thing right now is that I-POP, MSOL, in as much as they have thanked the UK for that particular grant, the asylum, they are saying that what they need is a referendum. So where do we strike a balance? The very basic fact that they must be grateful to United Kingdom for giving them this particular global recognition of their struggle. And for them, referendum, that's what they want. But the fact remains that it is going to be very difficult for anybody to give referendum considering the situation of Niger National Assembly. It is not even in our constitution. Amendment of the constitution has to factor in referendum in the first place for us to start talking about referendum. You cannot do something on nothing. So there is no basis for that. And until that becomes part of the constitution of the Republic of Nigeria, it is still going to be a far cry for them to actualize referendum for now. So what they have succeeded in doing over the couple of years that I-POP has existed in our consciousness is that the struggle has gotten international acclaim. Just before we let you go very quickly, I just wanted to summarize a school of thought that is actually trending on social media, trying to compare the federal government's stand on I-POP and MSOL and of course granting Amnesty to terrorists and of course banditry. What do you really make of it? It is very wrong. You cannot use one particular cover to cover another pot. The Headsman issue has been terror in the country in the last couple of years has already been indexed as the fourth most dangerous terrorist organization in the world. It is no longer a local Nigerian politics now. The global community is involved. The global community is telling you by what they have done for I-POP and MSOL that they are not a terrorist organization. Now they have already told you that the Headsmen are a terrorist organization. They fought most deadly. So how can you rationalize giving Amnesty to a group that the global community has already identified as a terror group? All right. Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you so much. I'm afraid there's not as much as we can take out. Your thoughts have been noted and of course indeed we trust that the federal government is listening and should try to draw some conclusions from it. We do appreciate your time. Hon. Chukunone Okerike, Public Affairs Analyst. Thank you very much. All right. We'll take a short break now and when we return I'll be giving you my take on the attack on security formations. Stay with us. And here's my take. All hands must therefore now be on deck to check these ugly trends and to put the manners of attacks on formation at bay. Measure should manifest in the government and security agencies in the affected state of Pindirante in intelligence-gathering and surveillance to enable the agencies proactively and reasonably predict potential crimes with near-perfect accuracy rather than being reactive. Now government should not only rely on engaging security agencies but must recognize the need to devote attention to security intelligence. And that's plus politics. I am Justin Kadenier. We return again at 7 p.m. tomorrow. Bye for now.