I will start this essay on the step-by-step path to achieve the Biafra by teaching Constitutional Law 101.
The only way to effect a change in the polity, a change not envisaged in a constitution, in a country with a Written Constitution is via constitutional amendment.
The only way to effect such change without recourse to constitutional amendment is to impeach or overthrow the constitution.
The only way to impeach/overthrow the constitution is via military coup or a revolution.
Where the attempt to overthrow the constitution is successful and becomes grosso modo effective it becomes the new grund nom.
Where it is unsuccessful it’s treason!
Perhaps we need to remind ourselves that there is no provision for Referendum in the 1999 Constitution as amended.
Neither President Mohammadu Buhari nor the National Assembly has the constitutional authority to call for a Referendum for Biafra Exit even if they are favourably inclined to it.
Of course we know that the President and the National Assembly are not in any way sympathetic to Biafra aspirations.
It is also to be noted that no foreign Institution or Power has the power to call for a Referendum in a sovereign country.
Therefore the only way to achieve Biafra outside having a referendum is to overthrow the constitution, through military force.
The alternative is by all the SE/SS/SW governors, and NASS members sitting down together and ALL of them agreeing that they must amend the constitution by ANY MEANS POSSIBLE.
That is why the current campaign for Biafra is DEEPLY FLAWED.
Nations all over the world have fought are fighting and more will definitely fight in future for freedom.
Ours is not novel in history. Successes and failures have equally been recorded.
Amongst the recent failures is Chechnya struggle for freedom. Despite knowing the position of Russia in military and diplomacy, Chechnya freedom fighters insisted on military option. If there is any alive today, experience will tell him or her it was an effort in futility.
Amongst the success stories include the Northern Ireland and South Sudan.
While North Ireland applied two pronged approach of militant Irish Republican Army (IRA) and Sinn Fein (Political wing), United Kingdom Government got caught in the middle.
While she confronted IRA militia on the streets of London and Dublin, she had to drink tea with Gerry Adams at 10 Downing Street in the bid to politically resolve the Irish Question.
The two-prong approach of carrot and cane finally produced a middle course which seemed to help resolve the intransigent problem.
In South Sudan case, purely military opt was adopted, but when both sides got war-wary and diplomacy took center stage, political formula was introduced. And power sharing at the centre in Karthoun came into play.
Therefore being a freedom fighter is not an end on its own. Its a means to an end.
Political solution is the final solution.
After all fighting for freedom, all fighters must go up to the table of politics.
Self determination is a political process. All battles must end in a round table of politics.
Today in Biafran issue, though the scene is not the same, but the demand is the same: freedom.
Though the parties are not same, but the emotions are the same: rejection.
Though the stage is not the same, since some Irish community violently wanted to remain with United Kingdom as the other equally violently wanted to leave, while all Biafrans want to leave Nigeria, but only differs in methodology of their campaign.
The question is: what exactly is your methodology? Nonviolent (political option) or violent (military option)?
Your choice must be clear. Street protest is not an option. Going to Federal High court to obtain declaratory judgement on the rights of Indigenous people of Biafra is not an option.
These are only activities in both sides.
You must therefore be either cold or hot. If you choose hot (Violent) option, please go to War front. If its nonviolence (political) option, please hit political soapbox.
Let nobody deceive you.