Shredding the Baseless Smears: O’tega Ogra's Foolish Narrative on BRGIE and Biafran Advocacy

By Nnamdi Iheukwumere

O’tega Ogra's article is little more than a desperate hatchet job, peddling Nigerian government propaganda under the guise of journalism. It foolishly conflates peaceful advocacy with terrorism, ignores glaring hypocrisies in Nigeria's own record, and dismisses the unassailable historical and legal foundations of Biafran self-determination. This isn't analysis—it's a laughable attempt to whitewash Nigeria's failures while vilifying those fighting for indigenous rights. Let's dismantle these claims point by point with facts, exposing the absurdity of portraying BRGIE as some shadowy "terror arm" when it's a distinct, legitimate entity advancing diplomacy in the face of oppression.

1. BRGIE Is Unequivocally Separate from IPOB—Any Conflation Is Foolish Propaganda.

The article's core fallacy is lumping BRGIE with IPOB as if they're interchangeable, citing Nigerian courts that conveniently echo the government's anti-separatist agenda. This is not just inaccurate; it's downright foolish, ignoring well-documented rifts and distinctions within the Biafran movement. BRGIE, led by figures like Simon Ekpa, operates as an independent government-in-exile focused on diplomatic lobbying and international recognition, while IPOB emphasizes grassroots activism under Nnamdi Kanu.

Public statements from both sides highlight this separation.Ekpa himself has positioned BRGIE as a breakaway entity post-Kanu's arrest, registered under U.S. law as the sole legal vehicle for Biafran independence efforts.

Recent developments further underscore this: As of late 2024, BRGIE evolved into the redeclared Independent state of Biafra called United States of Biafra (USB), while maintaining its diplomatic focus—distinct from IPOB's ongoing activities. International observers, including the U.S., haven't designated either as terrorist groups, viewing them as separatist factions with varying approaches. To pretend otherwise is to swallow Nigerian state media hook, line, and sinker—foolish at best, malicious at worst.

2. Nigeria's Ruling Parties Proscribed as Terrorists by Canadian Court—Exposing Their Utter Lack of Moral Authority.

It's hilariously hypocritical for Nigeria to brandish "terrorist" labels when its own ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) were designated as terrorist organizations by Canada's Federal Court in August 2025.This ruling, upheld in an immigration case, cited systemic violence, corruption, and human rights abuses linked to these parties—far graver than anything alleged against Biafran groups.

With such a damning international judgment on its head, Nigeria has zero moral standing to proscribe anyone. Their 2017 ban on IPOB has only fueled radicalization, not peace, as human rights reports detail state-sponsored abuses against southeastern communities. Dismissing this as irrelevant is foolish—it's the pot calling the kettle black, except the pot is on fire.

3. You Can't Proscribe Indigenous Peoples—That's Not Just Illegal, It's Idiotic.

The very idea that a colonial-era construct like Nigeria can "proscribe" indigenous aspirations is absurd and violates international law, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which protects self-determination and cultural autonomy.Biafrans, rooted in Igbo and allied ethnic groups, aren't some invented threat—they're indigenous peoples with grievances from decades of marginalization, including the 1967-1970 civil war genocide that killed millions.Proscribing them doesn't erase history; it exposes Nigeria's fragility.

4. Biafra Predates Nigeria—Thinking a Proscription Can Subdue It Is the Height of Foolishness

It's utterly foolish to believe a mere government decree can quash Biafra, a concept that long predates Nigeria's artificial 1914 amalgamation by British colonizers. The name "Biafra" traces back centuries to the Bight of Biafra, a pre-colonial geographic and cultural entity encompassing the Gulf of Guinea region, with roots in indigenous kingdoms and trade networks far older than Nigeria's borders.

The 1967 secession was a revival, not an invention, and today's movement builds on that legacy. No "illegitimate proscription" can suppress a people's enduring spirit—history laughs at such arrogance.

5. Lobbying Is Legitimate and Just Getting Started—Not "Deceit," But Diplomacy the Article Foolishly Ignores.

Ogra's portrayal of BRGIE's U.S. lobbying as "laundering terror" is a foolish smear on transparent, legal advocacy under FARA. Moran Global Strategies' work—advocating for human rights and Biafran recognition—is standard affair in Washington, not some sinister plot.

Recent efforts in 2025 have intensified: BRGIE delegates held a historic U.S. Congressional briefing in September, influencing Senator Ted Cruz's

@SenTedCruz

S.2747 bill on religious freedom and pushing to pause U.S. arms sales to Nigeria amid persecution claims.

This has opened doors to international recognition, drawing parallels to successful movements like Somaliland's U.S. engagement. Far from "deceit," it's strategic diplomacy that's only scratched the surface—expect more briefings, bills, and global alliances as Biafra's case gains traction.

6.Go back to Journalism 101

Your media outlet @pmnewsnigeria is armature. Do some editing before publishing. Who is Simon Nkere?

Ogra's piece crumbles under scrutiny: a foolish echo chamber of Nigerian denialism that ignores facts, history, and justice. Violence from any quarter must be condemned, but true peace demands addressing Biafran grievances through dialogue and self-determination, not suppression. Biafra endures because it's rooted in truth—Nigeria's flimsy proscriptions won't change that.

Nnamdi Iheukwumere is a Senior editor at Abamake Network | @AbamakeX