Headlines
FG Jittery over UK’s Asylum Plan for IPOB, MASSOB Members, May Summon Envoy
- /home/rhoncare/pointblank.ng/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 27
https://pointblank.ng/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Lai.jpg&description=FG Jittery over UK’s Asylum Plan for IPOB, MASSOB Members, May Summon Envoy', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
- Share
- Tweet /home/rhoncare/pointblank.ng/wp-content/plugins/mvp-social-buttons/mvp-social-buttons.php on line 69
https://pointblank.ng/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Lai.jpg&description=FG Jittery over UK’s Asylum Plan for IPOB, MASSOB Members, May Summon Envoy', 'pinterestShare', 'width=750,height=350'); return false;" title="Pin This Post">
The Federal Government on Tuesday expressed anger over a plan by the United Kingdom to offer asylum to “persecuted” members of the Indigenous People of Biafra and the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra.
The Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, in an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria in Abuja, said the plan was disrespectful to Nigeria as a nation, adding that it was tantamount to sabotage.
Mohammed stated this as there were indications on Tuesday that the Federal Government might summon the British High Commissioner to Nigeria, Catriona Laing, over the asylum offer.
But socio-political groups including the Middle Belt Forum, the Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Afenifere and the Pan-Niger Delta Forum, supported the asylum offer by the UK and berated the Federal Government over the development.
The UK Visas and Immigration issued new guidelines to its decision makers on how to consider and grant asylum applications of members of Biafran secessionist groups in Nigeria.
In the guidelines published on assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government, it stated that the asylum would be granted to “persecuted” members of IPOB and MASSOB.
The two groups are calling for the secession of the Igbo in the South-East and many other ethnic nationalities in the South-South from Nigeria.
In the guidelines titled, ‘Country Policy and Information Note Nigeria: Biafran secessionist groups,’ released in March, the UKVI, a division of the Home Office, directed its decision makers to consider if a person “who actively and openly supports IPOB is likely to be at risk of arrest and detention, and ill-treatment which is likely to amount to persecution.’’
It further said the UK must also consider if the Federal Government’s actions were acts of prosecution, not persecution.
“Those fleeing prosecution or punishment for a criminal offence are not normally refugees. Prosecution may, however, amount to persecution if it involves victimisation in its application by the authorities,’’ the 56-page document noted.
An example of persecution, the UKVI said was “if it is the vehicle or excuse for or if only certain groups are prosecuted for a particular offence and the consequences of that discrimination are sufficiently severe. Punishment which is cruel, inhuman or degrading (including punishment which is out of all proportion to the offence committed) may also amount to persecution.”
On the alleged marginalisation of the Igbo, which it said led to the current agitation by IPOB, it said, ‘’Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari has been perceived by some as being dismissive and unsympathetic towards the people of the South-East, particularly with regard to the appointment of senior government officials which appeared to favour his northern constituents.
It disclosed that MASSOB and IPOB had largely advocated peaceful change but on occasions had used rhetoric that might encourage violent resistance, adding that IPOB in particular, through its online platform, Radio Biafra, and online comments of its leader, Kanu, had stoked secessionist aspirations and encouraged resistance to the authorities.
The guidelines noted that though MASSOB was not a banned organisation and continued to conduct public activities, a number of its supporters had been arrested – and some killed during demonstrations.
It stated, ‘’MASSOB, since its formation in the late 1990s, has clashed with the security forces. Numerous members have been killed, wounded and arrested – usually during demonstrations. Over a hundred arrests were made in September 2018, at least 10 in 2019; and, in July 2020, it was reported that members of MASSOB were arrested following clashes with the police.
“IPOB has in recent years become the dominant Biafran group. Since 2015, the security forces have reportedly extra-judicially killed tens and injured hundreds of its supporters and leadership, often using excessive force to control protests.
“The security forces have also arrested hundreds of IPOB supporters at different events, usually when disrupting demonstrations or marches to promote Biafran independence, particularly during 2015 to 2017, as well as during raids on the homes of IPOB leaders. Sources also report clashes with the authorities during 2018 and Amnesty reported that security forces arrested at least 200 and killed 10 supporters at different times during 2019.
On cases for consideration for asylum, the UK agency said, “A risk of persecution will depend on their role, profile and activities for the group, and previous arrests by the state. A person who actively and openly supports IPOB is likely to be at risk of arrest and detention, and ill-treatment which is likely to amount to persecution. Each case will need to be carefully considered on its facts, with the onus on the applicants to demonstrate that they are likely to face a risk of persecution.’’
While acknowledging instances of attacks on security forces by IPOB members, the agency said where members of MASSOB or IPOB had incited or used violence to disrupt public order, the government might have legitimate grounds to arrest and prosecute those people.
It, however, argued that “where the government has arrested and detained persons who, for example, peacefully participate in demonstrations and has then charged them with treason or the person is subjected to periods of detention in degrading or inhuman conditions, such treatment is unlikely to be fair or proportionate, and is likely to amount to persecution.”
A senior official of the Federal Government, who confided in one of our correspondents, stated that the government would demand an explanation from the UK on its decision which Nigeria considered as inappropriate and a veiled support for the outlawed group which had been agitating for the disintegration of the country.
The source stated, “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs will definitely take up the asylum offer to IPOB with the British High Commission. The government may summon the High Commissioner and demand an explanation for their decision which is totally inappropriate and a form of support for the proscribed group.’’
Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, has denied saying the Federal government will introduce a fuel tax when the economy stabilises and income levels improve.
In a post on X on Tuesday, Oyedele said his remarks during an interview with ARISE News was misrepresented, insisting that a “fuel tax is not on the table.”
However, during the interview with Rotus Odiri, ARISE News Business Correspondent, on the sidelines of the 2026 International Monetary Fund and World Bank annual meetings in Bangkok, Thailand, Oyedele said the tax would come when income levels improve enough for Nigerians to accommodate it.
He said taxes account for between 20 and 80 percent of pump prices in some countries, while many African countries impose between six and 10 different taxes on fuel products.
He said introducing fuel tax while petrol was still subsidised would have been counterproductive because government would effectively be paying the tax itself.
According to him, imposing the tax immediately after removal of petrol subsidy would be insensitive to Nigerians.
“The objective should be that instead of trying to suppress prices, which hasn’t worked for us, it hasn’t worked for any country in the world, not one. Instead of trying to suppress prices, think about how to grow income faster than prices rise,” Oyedele said.
“That’s how you bring prosperity and grow the middle class and that is exactly what we are doing as led by Mr. President himself.
“At the appropriate time, when the economy has stabilizes and income level will be able to accommodate it, those taxes will come. Not because we want to impose taxes,” he added.
In his Tuesday post, the minister reiterated that introducing a fuel tax at this time would be insensitive following removal of petrol subsidy, describing reports that government will introduce the levy when the economy stabilises as “fake news.”
A chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), and Deputy Director of the Presidential Campaign Council, Chief Dele Momodu, has described former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar as the most nationally formidable and experienced among the leading contenders for the 2027 presidential election.
Momodu said Atiku’s experience at the national level distinguishes him from President Bola Tinubu and former Anambra State Governor, Peter Obi.
He stated this on Wednesday during an interview on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, in Abeokuta.
“If you look at the antecedents of the three major candidates, between Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, you will see that Atiku is the most experienced. He has managed our country at the highest level,” he said.
Momodu traced Atiku’s political journey to the 1992 Social Democratic Party (SDP), presidential primary where he contested against late MKO Abiola and stepped down for him.
He said Atiku accepted the outcome without crisis even after he was not picked as Abiola’s running mate, describing it as a mark of true democratic temperament.
“He is the only one who started from around 1992, contested the SDP primary against Abiola and stepped down with uncommon equanimity. He did not make any noise,” Momodu said.
He noted that Atiku was among the founders of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, and served as Vice-President from 1999 to 2007.
Comparing Atiku with Obi, Momodu argued that while Obi’s best was demonstrated in Anambra, Atiku’s was at the presidency level managing the national economy.
“Peter Obi has tried his best in Anambra, while Atiku’s best is at the level of vice president controlling the economy of Nigeria. The difference is clear. He has matured in experience and exposure,” he said.
Momodu also said President Tinubu’s experience was largely limited to Lagos.
“What I’m trying to say is that Tinubu’s experience was limited to Lagos, and that is why when he became president, he thought Nigeria was Lagos. And he has found out now that Nigeria is not Lagos,” he said.
He argued that the current economic hardship under the present administration did not show prosperity, insisting Atiku remained better positioned to lead the country.
“Well, we are yet to see that prosperity, and if yesterday would determine today and tomorrow, it is obvious that Tinubu should retire now and let someone else do it,” Momodu added.
DailyPost
President Bola Tinubu says he has no regrets over the removal of petrol subsidy and other economic reforms introduced by his administration, insisting that Nigeria could not borrow its way to greatness.
Meanwhile, Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Taiwo Oyedele, has warned Nigerians against returning to petrol subsidy. He said the backtrack could trigger capital flight, undermining investor confidence and pushing the Naira to N3,000, N3,500 or even N4,000 per dollar.
But the Director of Media and Publicity of the African Democratic Congress (ADC) Presidential Campaign Council (PCC), Kola Ologbondiyan, challenged Oyedele to publish the economic model behind his warning that a return to fuel subsidy could push the naira to N4,000 per dollar.
The President spoke on Monday during the City Boys Movement retreat in Abuja, where he charged members of the group to mobilise support for his administration ahead of the 2027 general elections, insisting that the country’s future mattered more than the ambition of any individual candidate.
“No regrets,” Tinubu said, insisting that his administration would not be pushed back from its reform agenda.
He took a swipe at his political opponents, promising to restore the petrol subsidy, saying Nigeria could no longer afford to pay the fuel subsidy, and warning that reversing the policy would take the country back to an unsustainable economic path.
Defending his decision to remove the subsidy on his first day in office, Tinubu said the country was on the verge of financial collapse and could no longer afford the policy’s cost.
Tinubu also sought to reassure Nigerians about the direction of the economy, arguing that growth was steady and that the sacrifices associated with his reforms would ultimately offer citizens a future worth believing in.
Oyedele disclosed during a press briefing of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Annual Meetings in Bangkok, Thailand, yesterday, that investors had repeatedly questioned whether the government would abandon its reforms ahead of the next election cycle.
Ruling out the reversal of the government’s economic reforms, he maintained that any signal that Tinubu’s administration was contemplating or reinstating the subsidy would immediately affect financial markets, raise borrowing costs and worsen economic pressures on households.
“In all the meetings I have had, I came to a conclusion that the markets, including the domestic market, which you can read from the capital market, and the international market, have largely written off the opposition in Nigeria as unserious.
“If, for any reason, the President were to say we are merely considering the return of fuel subsidy, capital would react immediately, airfares would struggle, the naira would come under severe pressure, potentially moving towards 3,000, 3,500 or even 4,000.
The very fuel people want subsidised would become far more expensive in Naira terms,” Oyedele warned.
However, Ologbondiyan accused the Federal government of using fear to discourage debate on fuel subsidy, insisting that Nigerians deserve evidence, not alarming projections, on the potential economic consequences of restoring the policy.
Speaking to journalists, he described the minister’s warning as scaremongering and demanded that the government explain how it arrived at the projected exchange rate.
“The Minister of Finance is merely scaremongering. He cannot claim that a return to fuel subsidy will cause the naira to depreciate to N4,000 to the dollar without showing Nigerians the model behind that projection,” he said.
He questioned the reliance on investors’ concerns to oppose a subsidy’s return, challenging the government to identify the sources of the projections and disclose their calculations.
