By Uche Mefor, Owerri
Nigeria’s persistent disregard for the principle of equal rights under the 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations calls into question its claims to indivisibility and territorial integrity. The South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) contends that Nigeria does not possess a government representing “the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction,” as required by international law. Consequently, Nigeria’s claim to indivisibility and territorial integrity is fundamentally undermined, and the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) presents a compelling case for self-determination under the same international legal frameworks.
The 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations: A Framework for Equal Rights
The 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States lays out a clear standard for state conduct, requiring states to respect the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. A state must possess a government representing all people within its borders, without distinction as to race, creed, or colour. The Declaration also emphasises that nothing in it should be construed to impair the territorial integrity of sovereign states, provided those states respect the principle of equal rights and self-determination.
In Nigeria’s case, the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) argues that the state has consistently failed to meet this standard. The government does not adequately represent the Igbo people or treat the South-East region with political, social, and economic equality. For decades, Nigeria has marginalised the region, withholding equitable access to political power, resources, and opportunities for development. This has led to the alienation of the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) from the broader national framework and a growing demand for self-determination as a means of achieving political and social justice.
Territorial Integrity and Self-Determination: A Question of Compliance
The principle of territorial integrity, often invoked by the Nigerian government, is conditional under international law. It applies only to states that “conduct themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” Nigeria’s claim to indivisibility and territorial integrity is therefore invalid if the state does not fulfil its obligation to represent the entire population, including the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra), without distinction.
In this context, the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) argues that the Nigerian government has consistently violated the principle of equal rights by disproportionately favouring certain regions, particularly the North, while marginalising the South-East. This exclusion has been exacerbated by the aftermath of the Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970) and the Nigerian government’s refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue with the South-East region regarding their demands for fair representation and development.
Implementation of the Right of Self-Determination through Secession
The argument in favour of the South-East Region’s (Igbo-Biafra) right to self-determination is further supported by international legal precedents. While conservative thinkers contend that the right of self-determination does not extend to secession, they base this on the principle of territorial integrity and ‘uti possidetis juris’ , both of which are protected under the United Nations Charter and the Constitutive Act of the African Union. However, this principle applies only to states that fulfil their obligations under international law, which includes representing all their people equally.
Judge Koroma, in his dissenting opinion in the Kosovo Advisory Opinion case, argued that “International law does not confer a right on ethnic, linguistic or religious groups to break away from the territory of a State of which they form part, without that State’s consent, merely by expressing their wish to do so.” He warned that recognising such rights outside the context of decolonisation could create dangerous precedents. However, this view hinges on the assumption that the state in question represents its people fairly—a criterion that Nigeria has consistently failed to meet.
On the other hand, progressive thinkers assert that the genuine exercise of self-determination must necessarily include the right to secede in cases where the state does not represent all its people equally. As Judge Dillard stated in his separate opinion in the Western Sahara Case, “It is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not for the territory to determine the destiny of the people.” This perspective aligns with the situation of the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra), where arbitrary borders drawn during colonial rule did not reflect the realities of the people living in the region. The continued denial of political and social rights to the Igbo people justifies their claim to self-determination, including the right to secede if necessary.
The Role of International Legal Precedents
Several international legal precedents provide support for the right of the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) to self-determination. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Kosovo Advisory Opinion ruled that Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence did not violate international law. This decision, although controversial, reflects an emerging state practice regarding self-determination through secession in cases where the existing state does not comply with the principle of equal rights.
Additionally, the break-up of the former Soviet Union in 1989 and Yugoslavia in 1992, as well as Crimea’s unilateral secession from Ukraine in 2014, further support the argument that self-determination can be implemented through secession in cases where a region is denied fair representation. The South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) finds itself in a similar situation, where decades of marginalisation have led to a legitimate claim for autonomy or independence under international law.
Balancing Self-Determination and Territorial Integrity
It is important to recognise that an unregulated right to secession could have destabilising effects, particularly in regions with diverse ethnic and religious groups. However, the case of the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) is unique in that it involves a clear and persistent violation of the principle of equal rights. As Gardiner noted, “The balancing of the right to self-determination and the interest of states in preserving their existing identities has produced an interpretation of self-determination which aims at securing fair participation in the political process allied to respect for human rights.” In the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra), these conditions have not been met, justifying the demand for self-determination.
A Call for International Recognition
The South-East Region’s (Igbo-Biafra) case for self-determination is firmly rooted in international law, specifically in the 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations and subsequent legal precedents. Nigeria’s disregard for the principle of equal rights invalidates its claim to indivisibility and territorial integrity, opening the door for legitimate claims of autonomy or independence by the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra).
This is a call for the international community, including academics, politicians, legal experts, and governments, to recognise the South-East Region’s (Igbo-Biafra) right to self-determination. The Igbo people’s struggle for political representation, social justice, and autonomy is not only a matter of regional significance but also a global issue that speaks to the core principles of equality, justice, and human rights.
Uche Mefor is the Convenor of the Igbo-Biafra Nationalists and the Indigenous People of Igbo Nation for Self-Determination.
