The quest for self-determination by the people of old Eastern region of Nigeria, historically crystallised in the

Biafra movement, represents one of Africa's most protracted and contentious political conflicts. This paper

argues that the failure to implement the 1967 Aburi Accord constitutes a foundational betrayal that legitimises

the contemporary grievance, while the subsequent rigid application of the uti possidetis principle has served to

entrench a state of what can be termed 'Igbo-phobia'—a systemic political, economic, and security

marginalisation. Through an international law lens, the paper deconstructs the tension between the right to self-

determination and the inviolability of colonial borders. It examines the Aburi Accord as a failed historical

precedent for a political settlement and analyses the incarceration of Nnamdi Kanu as a symptom of the

International Law, Devolution, United Kingdom Model.

The political landscape of post-colonial Nigeria is haunted by the spectre of the Republic of Biafra and the

devastating civil war (1967-1970) that its declaration precipitated. For decades, the official state narrative has

been one of "No Victor, No Vanquished," a slogan seemingly observed more in words than action, which has

rung hollow in the face of persistent claims of marginalisation by the Igbo people of the South-East. The recent

incarceration and trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has re-

internationalised this conflict, framing it as a clash between the sacrosanct principle of territorial integrity (uti

possidetis) and the fundamental right of a people to self-determination (Heyns and Viljoen, 2019).

proposing a radical yet pragmatic solution: the transplantation of the United Kingdom's model of a "country

within a country" as a constitutional panacea to break the impasse, offering the Igbo people internal self-

determination and restoring their faith in the Nigerian project.

Uti possidetis is a principle of international law that holds that newly independent states should retain the

pre-independence administrative boundaries as their international borders, converting internal territorial lines

into final external frontiers to preserve stability and prevent territorial disputes (Encyclopaedia Britannica,

2018).

The Igbo experience in Nigeria has been marked by a rollercoaster of integration and rejection. Prior to

However, the post-independence politics, marred by ethnic and regional polarisation, culminated in a bloody

unwanted and unsafe within the Nigerian polity. The declaration of the Republic of Biafra by Lt. Colonel

Chukwemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu on May 30, 1967, was thus framed not merely as an act of political

ambition, but as a necessity for survival (Ojukwu, 1969). The subsequent civil war (which the paper now

describes as Igbo genocide) and its brutal conclusion, including a policy of starvation as a weapon of war, left

an indelible scar on the national psyche and the Igbo people specifically, creating a legacy of grievance that

remains potent till this day (Nwachukwu, 2021).

Genocide is the intentional act committed to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious

group; it is recognised as an international crime in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the

Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention, 1948)

The large-scale international relief mobilization and the existence of some efforts to provide aid are cited as

(including failure to protect citizens) as proximate causes of mass death rather than an articulated plan to

destroy the Igbo people (Ogbonna, 2025; Nigerian Journal article, 2024).

The Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970) was often described by the federal government as a “police action” to

frame the conflict as a limited internal security operation aimed at restoring constitutional order and territorial

integrity rather than as a full-scale international war (Ukpabi, 1975) . Framing it this way served political and

legal purposes: it authorised the use of military force under domestic law, signalled an intention to contain the

insurrection rather than a separate belligerent polity (Omeni, 2022).

Contemporaneously, the label also reflected institutional practice; the Nigerian Army and Police collaborated

in operations intended to suppress the secessionist movement and reassert federal authority, reinforcing the

the secessionists the status of a lawful belligerent or sovereign state (Ukpabi, 1975; Omeni, 2022) .

Several non-Igbo scholars, commentators and organisations have described the 1966–1970 events in Nigeria —

including the anti-Igbo massacres and the Nigeria–Biafra War — as genocide or used the term “Biafran

2025).

In January 1967, as the nation teetered on the brink of war, Nigeria's Supreme Military Council met in Aburi,

Ghana, to seek a peaceful resolution. The Aburi Accord, reached after two days of negotiation, was a

masterpiece of compromise, designing a confederal structure for Nigeria (Akinyemi, 1974).

· Decentralisation of the Army: The army was to be regionalised, with commands subject to control by

generis interstate compact that could have formed the basis for a radical reconfiguration of the Nigerian state,

moving it from a federation to a confederation (Shaw, 2008). Ojukwu returned to the East and began

implementation, treating it as a binding agreement. However, the Gowon-led government in Lagos, under

pressure from a civil service opposed to decentralisation, reneged. The accord was diluted into "Decree No. 8,"

which recentralised power and stripped it of its confederal essence (Kirk-Greene, 1971).

Sui generis interstate compact is a compact between two or more states that is treated as legally and

functionally unique rather than fitting standard categories of treaties or ordinary agreements; it combines

bespoke institutional rules, tailored obligations, and durable political arrangements designed to address specific

cross-border problems, and is judged by its particular aims and structure rather than by ordinary treaty doctrine

fundamental political covenant.

Uti possidetis juris is a principle of customary international law that mandates that newly independent states

should inherit the administrative borders of the preceding colonial territory (Shaw, 2003). The International

Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali) case affirmed its status, stating

that its primary aim is to "secure respect for the territorial boundaries which existed at the time of

independence" (ICJ, 1986, p. 565). This principle was adopted by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in

1964 to prevent endless border conflicts by freezing the colonial boundaries (OAU Resolution 16(1), 1964).

For Nigeria and the African Union, this means that the right to self-determination for the Igbo people is

interpreted as internal self-determination—the right to autonomous governance, cultural preservation, and

equitable resource sharing within the borders of Nigeria (Adebayo, 2020). The demand for external self-

determination (secession) is viewed as an attempt at the violation of principles of uti possidetis and a threat to

the territorial integrity of the state.

Secession is the unilateral withdrawal of a territory and its population from an existing state with the aim of

creating a new independent state; in international law it is understood as a factual and political process whose

legality depends on context (for example, decolonisation or occupation) and on whether the secessionist entity

satisfies the conditions of statehood and gains effective control or international recognition (Thürer and Burri,

2009; Christakis, 2012).

Persistent perceptions of economic exclusion: Several analyses and opinion surveys report a widespread belief

among Igbo communities that the South-East receives comparatively less federal attention in national projects,

appointments and federal infrastructure allocation, contributing to narratives of deliberate marginalisation

(Oblong Media, 2025; Authority, 2024).

2021). His legal ordeal raises serious questions under international law. His extraordinary rendition from

Kenya in 2021, condemned by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (2022), constitutes a

gross violation of international law, specifically the prohibition on arbitrary detention and the principle of non-

refoulement.

The principle of non-refoulement prohibits a State from returning or transferring a person from its territory or

areas under its control to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing the person would face

a real risk of persecution, torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (OHCHR,