so-called Constitution, having failed to capture the possibility of a situation like this with its attendant solution, falls short of the minimum standard requisite for acceptance as grand norm.
A successful Anambra Election boycott will exhume the hollowness of our constitution and reinforce the call for peaceful secession vide internationally-observed referendum. Furthermore, it is a truism that a self-caused disenfranchisement is not unconstitutional. Those who have said it is unconstitutional for Director Nnamdi Kanu to give such directive are the ones unconstitutionally constitutionalizing this passive form of secessionist activity. Would those throwing invectives rather that more Biafran agitators lose their precious lives doing it the conventional way? Or is it constitutionally permissible to shoot at unarmed agitators?
The legal outlook on the call for election boycott does not reveal anything unlawful. No law is breached by the directive, for just as it is the unassailable right of an eligible voter to cast his vote during an election it is even much more so for him to, on the basis of perceived aggression, withhold it. Disenfranchisement becomes legally actionable only when its cause is external to the eligible voter. To buttress my stance, it is wrong to force someone to give his fillip to an electioneering process.
Credibility of the candidates and tranparency of the electioneering process are the real determining factors behind overwhelming support. Participation in election is by conviction and perceived ECONOMIC and POLITICAL INTEGRATION, not INTIMIDATION or FIAT. Director Nnamdi Kanu’s call for election boycott does not run afoul to any rule or breach any extant law in Nigeria. His can be likened to that of the politicians who make use of specious promises at campaigns. I think the razzmatazz and brouhaha about this legal call are most unwarranted. If the politicians are free to schmooze about why they should be voted for, Director Nnamdi Kanu, as the leader of his people, is imbued with the right to direct his people aright. What is sauce to the goose is sauce to the gander. I guffawed when someone said she would drag Director Nnamdi Kanu to the UN over his directive. That will be an exercise in futility.
THE WEAKNESS AND CONCERNS OF ANAMBRA ELECTION BOYCOTT
There are those who think the proposed boycott has some booby-traps to be looked into and possibly circumvented. My inbox is bursting at the seams with such concerns. Some concerned persons mistake FEAR for CONCERN. I am not jiggered because Nigerians are yet to come out from the doldrums. Ours is a protracted submissiveness to military junta that was interrupted by providence. No one can doubt that we would still be full of panegyrics in the midst of glaring oppression, impoverishment, and political and economic disintegration had late Gen. Sani Abacha not died. Recall that all those that posthumously condemned him were the same people that lauded him. I am not surprised that most of the ones concerned about the impending Anambra Guber Election boycott were the ones excoriating all previous governments in the state. Let us see the purview of their fears.
1) That the boycott will discredit Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and adversely affect the struggle for secession.
The concern above is a manifestation of ignorance. The boycott is itself a passive orchestration of rejection of Nigeria’s political structure. It is a very risk-free way of protesting against Nigeria and all she stands for. The success of this directive, which will move the international communities to mount pressure on Nigeria for referendum, should be the concern of every victim of political and economic inequality.
2) That the boycott will give the ruling party, APC, the opportunity to take over Anambra State Government House.
This assertion above is wide shot from the
