Biafra post
By Anyi Kings
Published On The Biafra Post
July 18, 2026
The comment in the screenshot is attributed to Onuoha Chukwu Ebuka. I will respond to the claims made there on their own merits. But before addressing his long list of accusations against Arizona Tochukwu, one question must be answered:
Why did he completely abandon the central issue—the allegations surrounding Rachel Nwosu’s alleged involvement in previous asylum-related activities involving our people in Israel—and instead launch into personal insults and a bizarre demand for a random commenter to account for “five years of achievements”?
Arizona Tochukwu merely expressed surprise at a report he had read. He was not the author of the report, did not present himself as its source, and did not even make a substantive argument for or against it.
Yet, because he apparently appeared sympathetic to the DOS, he was called “foolish,” “an idiot,” and “dull.”
That is not intellectual engagement. That is the behaviour of someone who has run out of arguments and decided to attack the person who merely reacted to information.
If the allegations were false, the proper response was simple: produce facts, evidence, and a convincing rebuttal. Instead, the response was an emotional rant—exactly the kind of behaviour associated with the online recruits he claims to lead.
Now, let us examine the claims one after another.
1. “What has DOS achieved in five years?”
Let us begin with a major achievement that cannot be erased by Facebook propaganda.
In 2023, IPOB was associated with the Global Terrorism Index based on 2022 data. Following criticism and clarification, subsequent reporting distinguished the broader IPOB movement from the militant activities attributed to IPOB-ESN.
But let us also be honest about how IPOB got into that situation in the first place.
The allegations surrounding the activities of Simon Ekpa did not emerge from nowhere. There have been serious allegations that individuals within Nnamdi Kanu’s family circle and some of his legal representatives—including his siblings and lawyers—provided support, encouragement, or political cover for activities associated with Simon Ekpa and his violent campaign in the Southeast.
Those allegations have repeatedly been denied, but they cannot simply be erased from the historical record by pretending that the controversy never existed.
The result was that IPOB as an organisation risked being internationally associated with violence it officially disowned.
It was the institutional leadership of the DOS that had to fight to separate IPOB from those activities and defend the organisation's identity as a peaceful self-determination movement.
That distinction mattered.
While others were allegedly creating confusion, defending or politically shielding individuals associated with violent activities, the DOS was left to deal with the international consequences and protect the institutional identity of IPOB.
Following sustained legal, diplomatic, and institutional efforts, IPOB continued to defend its position as distinct from the criminal activities attributed to Simon Ekpa and his network.
That is an achievement.
And it is deeply hypocritical for people who helped create or worsen the crisis—whether directly or through political, legal, or familial support—to now ask what the institution that cleaned up the mess has achieved.
The question should instead be:
Who created the international crisis, who defended or enabled the controversial actors, and who ultimately worked to rescue IPOB from the consequences?
That is the history people should be debating—not throwing insults at a random commenter who merely expressed surprise over a report.
2. IPOB remains legally operational in Finland
Despite Simon Ekpa's terrorism-related conviction and the Nigerian government's diplomatic pressure, IPOB has remained legally operational in Finland.
That did not happen because of social-media photographs, airport poses, or diplomatic tourism.
It happened because of sustained institutional work, legal defence, diplomatic engagement, and the continuous effort to separate the IPOB organisation from the criminal activities of individuals acting outside its structure.
If the DOS had failed in that battle, IPOB could have faced deregistration and wider international consequences.
It did not.
That is another achievement.
3. “The US Congress is debating Kanu”
This claim is one of the most amusing.
The fact that an issue is raised, discussed, or introduced by a legislator does not automatically make it official United States foreign policy.
Congress debates numerous issues. Lobbyists and advocacy groups bring countless matters before lawmakers. But a congressional discussion is not the same thing as a change in US foreign policy.
The actual US policy framework toward Nigeria remains centred on security, economic relations, democratic governance, counterterrorism, human rights, and bilateral relations.
There is no established US foreign policy recognising Biafra or placing Nnamdi Kanu at the centre of American relations with Nigeria.
So, please, let us stop confusing lobbying, congressional discussion, advocacy, and foreign policy as if they are the same thing.
They are not.
4. The honorary citizenship claim
Honorary citizenship is symbolic.
It does not automatically confer legal citizenship, diplomatic protection, immigration rights, or recognition of a separatist state.
It is an honour—not a declaration of Biafran independence.
5. “What happened in Israel can never be achieved by DOS”
That statement is particularly ironic.
The DOS had already sent representatives to engage with the Israeli Knesset. The relevant video exists within our media archive. Its release was withheld because of diplomatic confidentiality.
That is precisely how serious diplomatic work often operates.
Diplomacy is not a concert. It is not a Facebook tour. It is not measured by the number of photographs taken outside government offices.
Israel's historical support for southern Sudanese movements was largely covert. Israel did not publicly parade its intelligence and military relationships with the Anyanya movement as a daily propaganda spectacle.
South Sudan's independence was ultimately achieved through decades of local resistance, international diplomacy, regional mediation, and political agreements. Israel played a role—but Israel did not single-handedly “liberate” South Sudan.
The same applies to Somaliland.
If the argument is that serious diplomatic engagement must always be publicly advertised with photographs and videos, then where is the evidence of a publicly advertised Israeli diplomatic campaign with Somaliland before Israel's formal recognition?
You cannot demand proof of secret diplomacy from others while celebrating public photo opportunities as if photographs themselves constitute diplomatic victories.
The difference is simple
Photo-op diplomacy says: “Look at where we went.”
Institutional diplomacy asks: “What did we achieve?”
In Brazil, the result was what mattered: the Brazilian Parliament enacted legislation recognising May 30 as Biafra Resistance Day.
The public celebrated the result—not the number of photographs taken while submitting letters.
That is why institutions matter.
A government office does not suddenly become unaware of IPOB because somebody arrives to submit another letter and records a short video outside the building. Serious diplomacy requires continuity, institutional memory, legal presence, relationships, and follow-up.
That is precisely why the institutionalisation of IPOB matters.
Within five years, multiple IPOB diplomatic offices have been established across different countries, with more developing. That is measurable institutional growth.
And here is the uncomfortable truth:
Since 2012, apart from creating awareness and the endless controversies surrounding the management of IPOB funds, what concrete institutional achievement did Nnamdi Kanu deliver between 2012 and his abduction and rendition in 2021 that compares with the diplomatic, legal, and institutional work being done today?
Awareness is important.
But awareness alone is not an institution.
You can insult Arizona Tochukwu for expressing surprise. You can call him foolish. You can question his intelligence.
But none of those insults will answer the central questions.
Where is the evidence refuting the allegations against Rachel Nwosu?
Where is the evidence proving that the Israeli photo-op tour produced any concrete diplomatic outcome?
Where is the evidence that congressional lobbying has become US foreign policy?
And where are the measurable results of the much-advertised diplomatic tourism?
Until those questions are answered, the insults are nothing more than a distraction from the original allegations.
Facts do not become false because a random commenter is insulted. And a photograph does not become diplomacy simply because it was taken in front of a government building.
Anyi Kings
July 18, 2026
