SUGE KNIGHT, SURGING TO PRISON?

Icheoku says it would appear that rap mogul, Marion Suge Knight, has finally been cornered; having played himself into the hands of a justice system which has been patently and eagerly waiting to snatch him and put him away and for a long time too. With his latest indictment for murder and other ancillary crimes, which the prosecutor described as “very large stack of uncharged crimes”, the founder of Death Row records label, which once had under its sleeve, rap artists Tupac Shakur, Dr Dre and Snoop Dogg, appears to be headed to the big house, where he would likely live out the rest of his life, under California's three strikes law, if convicted. 

A man who has had several running-ins and some very close calls with the law; and who instead of becoming sobered down and turning literally into a born-again, completely retired from his bad-boy machismo lifestyle/image, has continued barreling down that road to perdition. Now he is finally in an orange jumper suit and may have to wear it for the rest of his life. 

Surge Knight was indicted for murder and attempted murder resulting from vehicular run-over of two people - Terry Carter and Cle Bone Sloan near Universal Pictures Straight Outta Compton. He is currently locked up and awaiting trial, his bail application originally set for two million dollars having been revoked because he is a flight-risk. As a possible three-strike candidate under California sentencing law, he is looking at a mandatory life sentencing  if convicted. Suge had previously served five years in jail for assault and federal weapons violations; following his release in 2001, spent another 10 months behind bars for violating parole by hitting a Hollywood nightclub valet

icheoku laments that unfortunately some of our African American brothers do not learn from their experiences in order to understand that the justice system is always gunning for their black asses, desirous of catching and incarcerating them for good. With Suge Knight, it would appear that his ears were deafen by his mistaken believe of invincibility as a result of some rumored dirty work which he does for the FBI in African American communities? But now Icheoku and the rest of the watching world know that he is not after all what he thinks of himself - that cat with nine lives. That living a thug's life does not get anyone very far, especially in the American society where as a black-man you are a perpetual target of the justice system out to corner you and incarcerate you, thus solving another social menace problem or rather eyesore? 

Suge Knight is not above the law neither is he an untouchable underground boss as he erroneously previously thought of himself. A man who has severally ran afoul of the law but miraculously pulled a Houdini each time, has now finally spent his last luck and is currently playing guest to the law. Recall how Tupac was assassinated under questionable circumstance in a vehicle driven by Suge Knight in Las Vegas? Ditto was Lisa Left Eye Lopes suspicious one-victim accident death while traveling in La Ceiba Honduras in company of the same Suge Knight and a few others? But hey, like the saying goes kill by the sword, die by the sword, so the world is waiting to see how Mr Suge surges out of his present legal tango or otherwise, surge himself into the big house instead. Icheoku asks when are black Americans going to learn their lesson and modulate some of their lifestyles in order to help avoid all these pointy accusatory fingers which is laser-focused on them by a law which is skewed against them. 

WHY I LEFT UNCLE BUHARI FOR GEJ - ZARA ABDULLAHI.

Icheoku says behold a brave and courageous Fulani lady from Muhammadu Buhari's village, Daura, who has abandoned his ship and is now sailing with Team Jonathan cruise boat to second term 2015. icheoku says isn't this lady amazing, at least she uses her brain to think and weigh issues rather than allow herself to be swept away in the flood of misinformation propaganda of the desperately fanatical APC. 

According to this iyarinya, commenting on the scourge of Boko Haram and the deliberately wrong accusation the other side are levying on President Goodluck Jonathan, she said:-

"You are in your bedroom talking about the GEJ administration not doing anything about Boko Haram. So why do you think Boko Haram has not taken over the whole country if GEJ is not doing anything about Boko Haram or do you think Boko Haram hates traffic so much they don't want to come to Lagos and/or Abuja to similarly take over both cities too?' Please get a life and open your eyes to see the wonders of the ongoing transformation agenda throughout the country, including the successes our great military are recording over Boko Haram.' - My name is Zara Imam Abdullahi, I am from Muhammadu Buhari's village, Daura, Katsina State. I am voting GEJ and hope you too. On March 28, please do not help send me to purdah, reject BUHARI, vote for Jonathan.

NATO NO LONGER USEFUL, DISBAND IT NOW.

Icheoku says Ukraine needs weapons to defend itself from the aggression of Russia and the West owes Ukraine, at minimum, the supply of those weapons without any more dithering.   Ukraine is not asking for boots of the West on their ground to help them fend off Russian aggression, no, they are merely asking for weapons to enable them defend itself from a clear aggression by an oversupplied and overwhelming Russia army, using the subterfuge of some eastern rebels. Icheoku says if Russia is supplying weapons to the other side and enabling the rebels to advance rapidly on Ukrainian territories; and the same Ukrainian people risked it all by making a bold democratic move of completely freeing themselves from all Russia vestiges and apron strings, and desiring to fully join the West, it is therefore immoral for the West to stand idly by and watch, while internationally recognized territories of Ukraine are gradually redrawn and decimated by an invading rebels supported by the Kremlin. What is the logic behindRussia could supply weapons to the rebels but the West doing so to Kiev would amount to escalation of conflict, when Russia has steadily escalated it.

Icheoku says the rebels advance thus far would not have been possible if not for Russian help, supplying them  weapons and logistics as well as cognizance and intelligence gathering. So if it is acceptable for Russia to aid and abet rebels who are ravaging a sovereign country, why is it not similarly acceptable for the said country to be able to help wade off or defeat such rebellion? At least Ukraine is not planning or going to invade or attack Russia with the supplied weapons; it will merely use them to secure their territorial integrity and retake already lost territories. Icheoku is convinced that but for the Russian help, those rebels would have since been routed by the Ukrainian military, which unfortunately now stands helplessly outgunned by a previously ragtag rebel with now Russian supplied advanced weaponry and superior military technical know-how and advisers.

Query: what does Ukraine then benefit from taking all the risk they took, thumbing their nose at Russia, if only to now wait and watch as their new foe Russian aided rebel make a mince meat of their sovereign territories, gulping it one square foot at a time and rapidly advancing towards Kiev?  What Ukrainians are asking for is not for NATO to put itself into the fray but to help them with weapons to defend their sovereign territories. So what is stopping Western countries but fear of the Russians; and you ask yourself wouldn't that be the same trembling argument should Putin's Russia decide to invade other former territories of the former Soviet Union that are now part of the new expanded West. 

Icheoku is of the opinion that the deathly afraid European countries would in similar manner argue for Russia to just take back what used to belong to them in order not to disturb the peace of Europe. In taking this position of weakness in the face of an aggressive Russia, the Europeans would have forgotten that peace is never free; it is never achieved nor possible without fighting for it; and to guard and protect it as enthroned, sometimes wars are a necessary continuum, whether cold or hot.  Icheoku maintains that the peace the Europeans are currently enjoying was once fought for and still requires periodic upgrading of training and weaponry to keep it, as well as for its defenders to be top heavy ready in case it is threatened.  So what if Russia is emboldened by the knee-jerk response of the West into asserting itself further, either more intrusively inside Ukraine and more closer to Kiev or by invading some other surrounding countries such as Poland? 

Icheoku says Russia has been probing NATO defenses all these years and is becoming more embolden each day in their quest to assert themselves once again in the world. It needs and must be stopped now; and inside eastern Ukraine, that is. There is no other better place to draw the line on the ground for Russia's latest show of strength than in eastern Ukraine, before they begin to gulp down other European countries towards reestablishing their long gone Soviet Union; and in the process, probably set the world on fire. Icheoku says this lingering contest of superiority between Russia and the West should be decided now, once for all. If they win us, we will learn to speak Russian; but if we win them, God bless their hearts for we shall saturate the land of the great tsars with McDonald's and Starbucks. 

Icheoku is of the opinion that the Ukrainian crisis gives NATO the greatest opportunity to actually put to test the reason for their existence. They should accept the gauntlet which Russia has technically thrown to them by supplying weapons to the rebels fighting an insurrection against a sovereign nation. If Russia reacts by furthering their incursion into Ukraine, then it should be accepted as a declaration of war and NATO should help Ukraine defend itself from Russia. If it results into a third world war, so be it; after all one is long overdue and it will surely help the world recover from its economic malaise, rebuilding destroyed infrastructures. 

Icheoku says if NATO does not and could not stand up to Russia now, when? Admitted that the purpose of its existence is to fight for one another member and Ukraine is only but a prospective member not covered by its charter; but what happens when a far much stronger country Russia is bulling a smaller and weaker neighboring country, Ukraine? Any lack of show of will by NATO would drastically compromise NATO standing in the eyes of Russia and this should be avoided at all cost. Further since the envisaged enemy for which NATO was originally formed was Russia, why not test NATO's capabilities now, using Ukraine as a trial run. But in any other event, if NATO turns a cold feet in the face of an emboldened and aggressive Russia, then that relic of the old cold war era has no more relevance and should therefore be allowed to go defunct. The thing to do under such circumstance is to JUST DISBAND THE GODDAMN ORGANIZATION and to their tents oh its members. 

Icheoku says it is also increasingly becoming very obvious that Russia and the West will never engage themselves in a shooting war, so why continue to maintain an aggressive postured organization that its charter on defense will never be invoked or activated or ever called to action. So just let North Atlantic Treaty Organization go and let there be peace on earth. Let the world thereafter channel its energy and resources towards fending off the new enemy - the emerging global Islamist terrorism; which is readying itself as the next big threat to confront the world and which is going to be indeed the real world scourge. Icheoku says the West should supply those weapons to Ukraine; Europeans should also man up and do the needful and not let Putin intimidate them into doing nothing or scurrying away with their tails tucked in between their legs. If Vladimir Putin does not want further escalation of the conflict, let him dry up the swamp of weapons supplies to the rebels and force them to the negotiation table in order to achieve a comprehensive lasting peace. But his current support of those rebels ravaging a sovereign neighboring country is both reprehensible and condemnable and should therefore not be tolerated any further.

LIU HAN EXECUTED, CHINA TAKES NO PRISONERS ON CORRUPTION?

Icheoku says it does not matter who you are or how high in the society you are placed; that your bank accounts are bursting at the seams or that your fleet of Bentleys or Ferraris and Rolls Royces are everyone's envy, it does not matter; once your cup is full and they catch you, boy would you pay with your life for your corrupt activities. The Chinese authority does not play when it says it fights corruption, hence anyone engaging in corrupt practices does so at the risk of his or life, billionaire or no billionaire and it also does not matter if you are a high ranking government official. 

The Chinese authority just executed their ninth billionaire within the past eight years, Mr Liu Han, alongside his younger brother Liu Wei and three other accomplice for corrupt offenses against the state. Liu Han was a former mining billionaire who collected very expensive cars, cigars and wrist watches as if they are mere toys, soon going out of production. But now he has reached the end of the road  of his life on a very fast lane, executed for all his shadiness. 

Icheoku does not know whether the supreme penalty is the best solution or the most effective way to fight corruption; or would completely confiscating every asset owned by such person and deeding it over to the state be more effective? Admitted some people would argue that such executions serves as deterrent to other intending perpetrators but it has not proved to stop corruption as people still dare take their chances. Icheoku however believes that completely impoverishing such corrupt persons would be a more effective deterrent than just putting them to death. But hey, at least everybody is treated equally under the said death penalty law - rich or poor, government official or the man on the street. Icheoku says this is what equality under the law really looks like as another billionaire could not purchase his life, not with all his billions.

NBC BRIAN WILLIAM LIED, SHOULD RESIGN OR BE FIRED!

Icheoku says stepping aside will not cut it. What was good for CBS Dan Rather should also be good for NBC Brian William. In Dan Rather's case, it could even be argued in his favor that he mistakenly told a lie based on a third party's account that George Bush never served in Texas Air National Guard; but unlike Brian William, who intentionally and purposely told a lie just for his personal egotistic aggrandizement. At least Dan Rather never claimed he was in Texas when George Bush failed to serve, but Brian William was rehashing a first person account, somewhat a percipient-witness's account, of his "valor" in a war front. Therefore he told a blatant lie aimed at misrepresenting of facts and misled so many people into believing he is one strong son of a gun who flew into heat of battle but made it out alive and well, albeit a little shaken up. 

Icheoku says Brian William "taking himself off the air for several days" is not enough deterrent or punishment; he should rather take himself off the air forever and permanently or the network should do that for him by firing him. Icheoku says Brian Williams has lost all credibility whatever and the network leaving him still on air would be a tacit approval by them that it is okay to lie. He should not be allowed to to taint news from the network going forward as anything he reels out henceforth would carry some degree of incredulity. The best thing is to let him go permanently and let the NBC begin to heal its image of having an anchorman who told a a blatant lie. Icheoku calls on Brian William to do the needful and RESIGN his office now as the anchorman of NBC nightly news and failing which NBC must let him go, FIRE HIM. 

The Washington Post fired its reporter Sari Horwitz for plagiarism; the AP fired its reporter Bob Lewis for lying about Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe; The Los Angeles Times fired its reporter Jason Filch for false reporting, CBS fired Dan Rather for a mistaken report, so why not NBC portion out the same treatment to Brian Williams? So if all these media outlets could uphold the honor of their reports and disciplined their offending correspondents, what is NBC waiting to tow the line and see the back of Brian Williams from their network? Icheoku says such self gloating and self promotion, without merit or any basis, by Brian William, should be seriously frowned at and never tolerated of an anchorman or any other person for that matter, especially one with an apparent authority or influence over the people. What Brian William claimed was an over exaggerated sense of self and of a bravely which he did not earn, nor merited and therefore should not be rewarded by leaving him to continue on that his seat. He should be punished or rather disciplined with a termination of appointment or deployed out of public sight on NBC network television. 

Icheoku says Brian Williams knowingly and intentionally did what he did - he lied and misled the American people  as well as the rest of the watching world into believing his concocted story of heroism and repeatedly too. He did not tell the lie once,  but on several other occasions including on David Letterman show. Brian Williams had enough time to pull back and recant the lies he told, but no; instead he was revering in his newly found fame of bravery. He choose to rather continuously mislead the American people as he surfed the wave of his sudden unearned fame and bravery as a reporter who went into the eye of the storm and made it back safe. 

Icheoku says Brian William is a liar, he is a cheat and he should therefore be dismissed pronto and without any further ado or delay. For repeatedly telling a story that he was shot down in a helicopter in Iraq when he was not, tend to minimize the seriousness of what those real combatants who suffer such fate, go through. It is despicable, it is condescending of him and it should not be condoned. Icheoku maintains that this is not a case of a "fog of memory" as he was not alone in the supposed helicopter and had several occasions to recant his tale but chose not to and did not, until veterans complained about his unfounded claims. Icheoku is emphatic that his was not a mistake but a purposeful misstatement of fact which he witnessed and thus a blatant lie. Brian Williams having lost all credibility and trust of the news watching public, SHOULD BE LET GO and never allowed to show his lying face on NBC or any other new network again.

SANUSI LAMIDO SANUSI, CORONATED EMIR AND NOW SARIKI SANUSI II OF KANO.

Icheoku says it is now official that Sanusi Lamido Sanusi is the new Emir of Kano. He was formally coronated and handed the staff of office and is now officially known as Sariki Sanusi II. The Emir and Sariki Kano, Sanusi II, was presented with gifts of a sword, knife, bow and arrow by the emirate council, thus empowering him as the defender of their cause including the spread of Islam which the new Sariki vowed would constitute part of his agenda. In his words, Sariki II said, 'his ascension to the throne has strengthened his resolve to fulfill his obligations to Allah, to Islam and to the people of Kano.' Icheoku says interpretation  -  war, war and more war against all infidels and people who are not of Kano ancestry? 

Query:- why were all the gifts presented to the new Emir and Sariki of Kano all instruments of destruction and killing; without any instrument or insignia of peace being therein contained too? So what does it portend to a cohesive Nigeria and the one united Nigeria which this people readily bandy around and which they would like everyone to believe, but which in real sense actuality, is a complete hogwash ruse, merely used when convenient and discarded at the next instant. Icheoku asks why not present the new Sariki II with the Koran, music instrument or some paintings and carvings, instead of sword, bows and arrows, spear, knife etc? 

Anyway, one day Nigerians will rise up to truly resolve all the impasse in the country, in order to truly have a more coagulate society where every one is equal and treated fairly, whether or not he or she comes from any of the emirates or their ruling houses. Meanwhile, congratulations to the new Sariki II of Kano and may your reign help bring some reasonableness to your people's attitude of born to rule which is causing all the unneeded tension in the land. But please know that the people from this neck of the wood have resolved that if they cannot rule you people, you people shall not and must not be allowed to rule them, never again and not in the life of Nigeria as it is presently limping. Icheoku says best of luck and may your ancestors guide and protect your reign.

ELECTION 2015:- FEBRUARY 14TH JETTISONED, IT IS NOW MARCH 28TH.

Icheoku does not know nor see the wisdom in deferring the Election 2015 till March 28, a whole six weeks from its originally scheduled date of February 14th. Aside of INEC probably completing the distribution of PVCs, there is no guarantee that the Boko Haram madness would be fully contained within the set six weeks time frame. 

But Jega and Nigerian security officials know best and all Icheoku can do is defer to their judgment and tow the line. However, Icheoku would pivot our principal focus away from the election as rescheduled until probably two weeks to it, to enable us gravitate to other topical world issues. Icheoku is also afraid that if the election is extended once, it might be extended yet again based on one excuse or the other, but the speculation should also yield for now.  So until then, our blogging will now revert to its original tenet - broad coverage of world developing stories; and it is now temporary bye for Nigeria Election 2015. Ciao!

GEJ ALL THE WAY!!!!!

BUHARI IS A MURDERER, SO SAYS THE ECONOMIST?

The Economist called Muhammadu Buhari a murderer, yet endorsed him for Nigeria's president? Query: would the British people allow a murderer and a man with "blood of British people on his hands" inside their 10 Downing Street as their Prime Minister? If not, why is their magazine, The Economist, wishing such evil upon Nigeria's own Aso Rock. 

On February 14, tell The British colonial instrument, The Economist, that their shameful contrivance is known; and that Nigerians are too decent a people to allow a man who has killed Nigerians before inside their Aso Rock. On February 14, Vote for peace and freedom, VOTE GEJ.

THE ECONOMIST DOES A HATCHET JOB ON JONATHAN, ENDORSES BUHARI?

Icheoku says the gang-up against Nigeria's current march forward is continuing as The British Economist has now officially unveiled its mask by endorsing a brutal dictator and a murderer, a man who The Economist agreed 'has blood on his hands', for Nigeria's president? Query: how can any Nigerian people's loving magazine prefer a man who has murdered Nigerians to a man who is trying his best under the circumstances to improve the lot of the people, admitted his pace might not have been as fast enough as expected, as their president? Icheoku says any Nigerian who does not find some sinister motive in this supposed endorsement of Muhammadu Buhari by The colonial British The Economist magazine, must not have his or her thinking-hat on. What manner of a person or magazine would rather have a murderer ruling the Nigerian people but a nearing bankrupt tabloid with declining readership which is trying to assert and insert itself in a purely internal affairs of Nigeria. 

In their very hateful and extremely biased article - "The least awful", titled "A former dictator is a better choice than a failed president", the magazine wrote "Sometimes there are no good options. Nigeria goes to the polls on February 14th to elect the next president, who will face problems so large - from rampant corruption to a jihadist insurgency - that they could break the country apart, with dire consequences for Nigerians and the world. And yet, as Africa's biggest economy stages its most important election since the restoration of civilian rule in 1999, and perhaps since the civil war four decades ago, Nigerians must pick between the incumbent, Goodluck Jonathan, who has proved an utter failure, and the opposition leader, Muhammadu Buhari, a former military dictator with BLOOD ON HIS HANDS. The candidates stand as symbols of a broken political system that makes all Nigeria's problems even more intractable." 

Icheoku queries, who made The Economist a judge over Nigerians or gave them the right or impetus to decide for Nigerians who to choose as their president? How dare The Economist become this intrusive in who becomes Nigeria's president or even fathom a say, trying to influence the outcome of a purely internal affairs of a sovereign state? Icheoku alerts Nigerians not to fall to this baiting by a stupid racist white people's magazine, out to get Nigerians into reversing all the gains of this past few years, when good governance has catapulted Nigeria into the front of Africa's best economy as well as one of the world's fastest growing economy. As for the white people, who Icheoku knows very well, black people don't matter; and whatever they could do to stall any of their growth anywhere including in Nigeria, they would gladly do and so is The Economist latest dabbling in Nigeria's forthcoming election. Icheoku avers that The Economist is simply propagating the white peoples' well known agenda to stunt Africans and in this case, Nigeria; and they must not be allowed to have their way, not this time. Icheoku says to hell with The Economist and their unsolicited meddling in an entirely domestic affairs of Nigeria. Icheoku says The Economist should know that Nigerians and only Nigerians are and will be the sole deciders of who governs them on February 14, 2015.

Continuing the magazine wrote " Mr Jonathan....stumbled into the presidency.......Mr Jonathan has shown little willingness to tackle endemic corruption. When the central bank governor reported that $20 billion had been stolen, his reward was to be sacked." Icheoku retorts, what has The Economist got to gain by reminding the world particularly Nigerians, that President Jonathan "stumbled" into the presidency when every person already knew the fact of how his presidency began? Yet The Economist was clever by half in not pointing out that President Jonathan had since after the initial "stumbling" into the presidency, WON as of his own right, the presidency of Nigeria in an election. The Economist went way back to 2010 Jonathan's succession to late President Yar'Adua's presidency; but intentionally left out the fact that President Jonathan ran and won the presidency in 2011 and against the same Muhammadu Buhari he is currently locked in a near dead-heat for the same office this 2015. So query, whose hatchet job is The Economist doing with their useless endorsement of a brutal dictator, whom they reluctantly admitted, have the blood of innocent Nigerians on his hand? Yet The Economist would rather a bloody despot sit over Nigerians' affairs despite his  vagrant abuse of their human rights, than for a president, who is doing his best under the circumstance, to continue to safely navigate the ship of the Nigeria state. 

Continuing, The Economist wrote, "Worse, on Mr Jonathan's watch much of the north of the country has been in flames. 18,000 people have died in political violence. Another 1.5 million have fled their homes. The insurgency is far from Mr Jonathan's southern political heartland and afflicts people more likely to vote for the opposition. He has shown little enthusiasm for tackling it, and even less competence. Quick to offer condolences to France after attack on Charlie Hebdo, Mr Jonathan waited almost two weeks before speaking about a Boko Haram attack that killed hundreds, perhaps thousands of his compatriots." Icheoku in response says who gave The Economist the 18,000 number of Nigerians killed by Boko Haram, they are bandying about? Where did they collate the figures from or did they sit in the comfort confines of their London air-conditioned offices and magically conjured the figure of 18,000 Nigerian perished, when none of their correspondents can pinpoint Chibok on the map, betting on their life? The Economist did not address the problem of its Western countries refusing to sell arms to Nigeria to fight the Boko Haram scourge, yet it was frontal in telling the world that 18,000 Nigerians have perished as a result of Boko Haram, with 1.5 million others displaced. Icheoku asks, would this number of Nigerians have suffered this fate if Western governments had rushed aid and help to Nigerian government and military to checkmate this mayhem. 

Icheoku says as with every tabloid out to gotcha you, The Economist just did a nasty hatchet job on Nigeria's President Jonathan, trying to whip up sentiments and inflame passion and ignite ethnic tension in a society that is already roiling over. What does The Economist want to achieve by stating that "The insurgency is far from Mr Jonathan's southern political heartland and afflicts people more likely to vote for the opposition?" Who told The Economist that those Boko Haram enclave would readily prefer Muhammadu Buhari to Jonathan. Who told The Economist that the president shows little enthusiasm in taking his country back from these insurgents from hell called Boko Haram? Further, what is wrong with President Jonathan consoling the French people following the fate they suffered in the hands of some Islamist terrorist; in similar manner as Northeastern Nigerians have suffered under the Boko Haram insurgency? Instead of The Economist questioning the French for not consoling Nigerians for their own loses, they are busy attacking a President who merely extended a hand of fellowship for the French people in their time of mourning; admitted President Jonathan did not personally visit France like so many other heads of state and governments, numbering forty-four, during the march of solidarity with France. Possibly The Economist desires to plunge Nigeria into anarchy with their exaggerated figures of Nigerians killed as well as those displaced as a result of the Boko Haram insurgence. Icheoku is emphatic that the number of victims and affected Nigerians as quoted by The Economist is very much over-exaggerated figures; and not what is on the ground as The economist would otherwise like the world to believe.

Further, The Economist wrote, "The singled bright spot of his rule has been Nigeria's economy, one of the world's fastest-growing. Yet that is largely despite the government rather than because of it; and falling oil prices will temper the boom." Icheoku queries, if it was indeed solely because of the people of Nigeria rather than an effectively tailored Nigeria government policies, why did the same Nigerian economy not achieve the same growth under previous governments in Nigeria, since the people of Nigeria always remained a constant in the equation? Icheoku says if it was merely because of the people and not the government, were the people sleeping through past governments and suddenly woke up to miraculously change things for the better under the present government? The fact of the matter remains that from the gloating of The Economist that "falling oil price will temper the boom," it is clearly obvious why the magazine wrote the nonsensical and not that they truly and honestly meant well for Nigerians by advising them on who to elect as their president. Icheoku says therefore Nigerians must rise up in unison and tell all these Western imperialists vultures and their The Economist megaphone, to shove it. To hell with these colonialists who have refused to help their former African colonies achieve greatness and are continually sabotaging every effort being made by black Africans to free themselves from shackles of under-development.

The Economist wrote, "Nigerians typically die eight years younger than their poorer neighbors in nearby Ghana," but they failed to add that under the Jonathan's government, there was an improved life expectancy, regardless of whether or not Nigerians died eight years younger than their neighbors. Query: did Nigerians suddenly started dying eight years younger because President Jonathan magically brought about the outcome? The fact of the matter is that The Economist, reading in between the lines of their acerbic commentary on the Jonathan's government, is clearly demonstrating an asinine hatred for President Jonathan, a man they merely addressed as "MR", not even acknowledging his office as president of Nigeria or his doctorate degree by addressing him as a Doctor or PhD. 

But it seems The Economist was only interested in propagandizing their hatred for President Jonathan, pointing out only his perceived failures, while tactically remaining mute as to the root causes of the supposed failures. A more objective magazine, which has no dog in the fight, would have objectively pointed out the challenges faced by the Jonathan government which is being sabotaged both internally and externally, especially by the western conspiracy not to have him succeed. Icheoku calls on Nigerians to now truly see the February 14 election for what it is - a full liberation from all these powers of darkness and truly declare their independence from these elements. The election is equally a test of their intelligence in choosing wisely a better and more people's orientated president to lead them. Otherwise how could anyone including The Economist, seriously prefer an elementary school certificate holder to a PhD holder for Nigeria's president; especially one who has the blood of Nigerians on his hand? Nigerians should ask The Economist, if it were in the United Kingdom, would they elect a murderer as their prime minister or would such a murderer instead have since be locked up and away in prison, where he belongs instead of campaigning for him to move into Nigeria's Aso Rock?  Icheoku asks The Economist, would they let a Muhammadu Buhari into their 10 Downing Street and if not why are they canvassing for his lease of Aso Rock? 

Why would The Economist wish for Nigerians what they would not accept nor take - to have a murderer preside over the British affairs? Imagine a Muhammadu Buhari who The Economist admitted was a military coupist, whose rule was "nasty and brutish" and whose "buharism"-styled governance was destructive, yet they want such an animal to be Nigeria's president? A Muhammadu Buhari who  quoting The Economist, "banned political meetings and free speech, detained thousands, used secret tribunals and executed people for crimes that were not capital offenses", yet The Economist wants such a perverter and traducer of the Nigerian people to become Nigeria's president? Icheoku berates The Economist that they are merely putting words into Nigerians' mouth when they inferred that 'many Nigerians think such a scumbag should be given another chance' as their leader. The truth is that the evidence on the grounds, short of the APC propaganda, is at variance with this conclusion and does not collaborate their assertion.  

Icheoku says imagine The Economist wishing Nigerians "a sandals-wearing ascetic" for president when Nigeria is not an ultra religious conservative wretched society? Nigeria is also not the poorest of the poor countries in Africa or even when measured against other countries of the world to have such poor-rat non-motivational character as their president. The Economist would rather have for Nigeria, a president who is severely too austere, very mean and who abstains from anything that makes life worth living? Icheoku berates this as another subterranean evidence of an extreme attempt by the white man controlled The Economist to see Nigeria cut to size and pushed back into the doldrums of economic inactivity and its attendant poverty. Look at The Economist, green with envy and complaining that Nigerian ministers could afford expensive wrist watches? Icheoku asks if not Nigerian ministers, who? If Saudi Arabia, an equally oil producing country could afford such exhibitionism and The Economist does not see anything bad with their ministers, why Nigeria's? Icheoku would like The Economist to know that majority of Nigerian ministers come from money and have expensive taste atypical Nigerians, before coming to serve in their various capacities as ministers. So salary or not, they could afford good stuff including "expensive wristwatches worth many times their annual salary", as they do not depend on their meagre salary to afford a comfortable lifestyle. 

Icheoku says The Economist was quick to point out that Muhammadu Buhari "repeatedly stood for election and accepted the outcome when he lost", but cleverly avoided or did not include the mayhem his defeats wrought on the country, resulting in numerous loss of lives and properties in the hands of Buhari-encouraged irate supporters? What a magazine that supposedly has no dog in the fight but which failed woefully in masking its bias, writing a very skewed commentary on Nigeria's forthcoming election. The Economist was equally telling Nigerians that only "a Northerner and Muslim" could have legitimacy to govern Nigeria, when Nigeria is not a Muslim country but a secular multi-ethnic and multi-religious country, not exclusively Northerners? Icheoku says Nigerians, now you know who actually is fueling the born-to-rule mentality of the Hausa/Fulanis - the people who skewed the contraption called Nigeria to favor the Hausa/Fulani in the first place, despite what Lord Lugard pointed out in his hand-over notes  in 1918 is their obvious shortcoming. 

The Economist is also telling Nigerians that only a military man can rule Nigeria and that Nigerian army is demoralized; yet the United Kingdom is not ruled by a military man and neither did The Economist include that the reason for the initial demoralization of the Nigerian army is the initial lack of weapons to fight Boko Haram, which The Economist's Western brother countries conspired to deny Nigerian army in their battle against the insurgents. Icheoku says The Economist did not even acknowledge the fact that some substantial progress is being made under the circumstance, especially the gains recorded as well as the push and confinement of Boko Haram out of several states to now merely a corner of the Northeastern Bornu State. 

Lastly and very luckily too, The Economist as well as their Westerner antagonists of Nigeria and their President Jonathan, will not vote in this Nigerians  election. Only Nigerians would and therefore it is for Nigerians to decide who to choose as their president and not a thousand of biased The Economist or any of their Western haters. Icheoku says Muhammadu Buhari is not the change Nigerians desire nor deserve and therefore Nigerians would not have him as their president. Muhammadu Buhari cannot save Nigeria but would plummet all the gains of the past years if given the mandate; but luckily Nigerians know better than The Economist is giving them credit for by trying to influence their election and would once again tell Muhammadu Buhari, no, thanks but no, to his offer to rule them. Icheoku maintains that President Jonathan has repeatedly shown his will and capacity to galvanize the country as one indivisible entity and would not stand by and watch the country go up in flames like the Balkan states, which The Economist's people supervised its devolution. But unlike the Balkans, Nigerians would not let these Western vultures preside over the fragmentation of Nigeria and on February 14, would deny them their ill-wish to see Nigeria gone with the wind. On February 14, tell The Economist that their game is up an blown open, VOTE GEJ.

VOTE FOR JONATHAN GOODLUCK, A MAN OF PEACE NIGERIA NEEDS !

BUHARI AND ISIS, WHAT THEY SHARE IN COMMON?

Icheoku says those terrorists of Iraq and Syria known as ISIS have this time definitely outdone themselves in farming out  terror to their captives. They have certainly crossed every known boundaries of humaneness as they went beyond all thresholds of exerting cruelty by roasting a human-being alive? Icheoku opined that even Al Queida and Nigeria's Boko Haram would agree that burning a man alive indeed crossed the lines of what humanbeings could do to one another, whether as to send a message of intimidation and fear or to prove that they are unfeeling animals capable of inflicting the worst type of painful cruelty on their captives. Icheoku queries what manner of vicious animals are these fellas who would take joy in burning a person alive and watch him roasted alive while revering in it? 

Icheoku says not even wild animals in Seregenti Wildlife park are capable of such bone-chilling exhibition of barbarism as this ISIS; those animals usually suffocate their preys before starting their feeding frenzy. But these rabid hyenas of Iraq and Syria Caliphate, they have shocked the conscience of the world into an unbelievable macabre display of brutality. At least they should have given the victim some valium to blunt the pains if bent on watching him burnt alive; but they did not. Instead in the name of whatever brand of Islamic sect they are practising and for which they created their Caliphate of hell, they doused the Jordanian pilot in inflammables while locked and chained inside a cage like an animal, then set him afire and watched him suffer an agonizing painful burning death. Icheoku says the entire humanity should rally round to get these scoundrels routed once and for all, as this magnitude of cruelty is an unacceptable behavior from any human-beings    so called. Icheku prays for the repose of the soul of the burnt to death Jordanian pilot Mu'ath al-Kaseasbeh.

When one thinks that their public humiliating beheading is the apogee of their cruelty, they decided to go one step further to top it off by burning to death a life human-being. Icheoku doubts if any other form of meting out punishment by death would ever surpass this, both in degree of torture and excruciating pain of a slow agonizing death. But  compared to Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria, who murdered three innocent Nigerians using a retroactive decree to achieve his premeditated target objective of putting fear of Buhari in the heart and minds of Nigerians, ISIS still won. Icheoku says however, Muhammadu Buhari and ISIS share a common goal of instilling FEAR OF THEM in the people and they both succeeded. On February 14, 2015, please Nigerians tell Buhari you have not forgotten the palpable fog of FEAR that he caused to envelope Nigeria during this regime of infamy; and that no sane Nigerian would cherish an encore. So on February 14, VOTE GEJ.

FELA TO NIGERIANS, DO AWAY WITH BUHARI.

"Driver get accident, but na conductor Buhari charge for tribunal." - Fela Anikulapo Kuti 

Icheoku says this was vintage Fela analyzing the warped decision of Muhammadu Buhari, following his military coup of 1983, who put the president of the country, President Shehu Shagari, in a posh government mansion but put the vice president, Vice President Alex Ekwueme in Kirikiri Maximum Security Prison under very harsh inhumane conditions. 

Icheoku says Nigerians, corruption is not just only when you take or give bribes, but also includes treating people differently because of their tribe and religion; or as in this case, intentionally causing a vice president harm by unfairly adjudging him guilty and holding him responsible for the actions of the president. Icheoku says Nigerians, please listen to the philosopher-musician and remember this disparate treatment and inequity of Muhammadu Buhari. On February 14, VOTE GEJ.

ELECTION 2015, SAY NO POSTPONEMENT !

Icheoku says no matter the excuse or subterfuge, the scheduled election of February 14, 2015 MUST and SHOULD go on, regardless. There is never a time a polity fully vote in any election, so if the Boko Haram infested region is incapable of voting, their votes should be divided percentage wise between the parties using the pattern of voting in their closest neighbors for allocation. If INEC is not ready with the PVCs, they should improvise with other identifying cards for purposes of accrediting the voters. But Icheoku rejects any attempt to postpone the election as such would taint any result thereafter, no matter who eventually wins. So INEC should conduct the election as scheduled; moreso they had all the time in the world to get prepared and be ready for the election. Icheoku says HOLD THE ELECTION as scheduled on February 14, 2015, NO EXCUSES is acceptable to Nigerians as well as the International community.

BUHARI DID THIS TO ME, PLEASE DONT VOTE FOR HIM.

Icheoku says to the many who ask what did the Biafran people expect from the government of then Nigeria in response to Biafran's aspiration to end the genocide being carried out against them which led them to secede from Nigeria, Icheoku says Biafran people expected the government of Nigeria to fight the war humanely but not with atrocious vendetta. It was supposedly a civil war, a conflict between supposed brothers and sisters; but when the Nigerian side converted it to a war of attrition and re-probative punishment, that was when they crossed the line. Icheoku says if the Nigerian side was indeed sincerely only trying to stop Biafrans from bolting away, they would have specifically targeted or directed their attack precisely against only the top echelon of the Biafra effort while sparring their defenseless citizenry and get it over with very quickly too. 

But no, they methodically and systematically exerted punishment; specifically and deliberately made the war to linger for too long in order to enable them 'mission accomplish' their genocidal objective. A more humane government, which was earnestly trying to pull her seceding citizens back into the common geography, would have quickly decapitated the headship of Biafra and then cajoled the Biafran people into happily and joyfully rejoining Nigeria again as fully reintegrated equal citizens without any prohibitive punishment, so many of which still lingers on till today. But to convert these people into haters in perpetuity of those connected with that war, by the way and manner they prosecuted that war and later failed in rehabilitation effort, smacks of a government which was not sincere in its initially stated objective of fighting the war. 

When they intentionally carpet bombed markets, schools, hospitals and hordes of Biafran refugees running for their dear lives and away from conflict theaters, killing hundreds of thousands of them in the process,  they crossed the line of decency. Icheoku says the Nigerian side passed judgment of vendetta on the entire Biafran people, regardless of age, sex and infirmities; and equally became the enforcing agents of their version of retributive justice on a whole Biafran humanity. They also denied food and medicine to starving women and children of Biafra including their pregnant women. Icheoku says the Nigeria side left the borders of humanity when they bombed hospitals and similarly slaughtered their captured and surrendered Biafran prisoners of war in their thousands of hundreds; and thus began their infamous genocide which till date, has pitted surviving Biafrans against the known architects of that war of infamy. 

Icheoku says when the Nigeria side massacred thousands of unsuspecting Asaba Igbo people at the end of the war, men and boys who were lured out of their various hiding places under the guise welcoming Muritala Mohammed, Muhammadu Buhari and other Nigerian army officers who were visiting Asaba, that was when they crossed the border line of being a civilized army. Then finally after the war, the same Nigerian supposedly victorious side, stole all the wealth of Biafrans, handing out only twenty pounds to each account holder regardless of how much millions of pounds they had stashed in their bank accounts prior to the war; that's when they transformed themselves into soldiers of fortune who pillaged Biafrans. Icheoku says when the same side declared no victor and no vanquished, but went ahead to and till today, treats the people of Biafra as war conquered and treating their natural resources as their own war spoil, that is when they tasked Nigeria's unity. 

When the Nigeria side declared the 3Rs of rehabilitation, reconciliation and reconstruction but went ahead and abandoned it, leaving the Biafran side completely devastated and deprived, a fate which they are still suffering till today, that was when they questioned the rational and reason de`tre of Nigeria's continuous existence as one entity. Icheoku says if indeed the Nigerian side sincerely did not want Biafrans to go out of love for them and not love for the natural resources of Biafran, which  they have selfishly appropriated to themselves only, why did they not embark on a Marshal-like Plan for Biafran at war end to help rebuild the devastation they intentionally wrought in Biafra-land? 

Now the same band of invading scoundrels are geared at forcibly preventing a former Biafran from his entitled second term presidency simply because he is a minority who shouldn't rule them in the first place? Icheoku says here again, the same people have yet crossed the line and are seriously questioning the co-existence of the disparate peoples that make up Nigeria. Two things: if they don't want us to rule them, they should not rule us; secondly, no Biafran in good conscience would vote for one of the architects of this genocidal war, especially one who has not found it in his heart of hearts to apologize for his role in that war; not necessary for fighting the war which as a soldier was his duty and job to so fight, but for the ruthless manner in which they waged it. Why carpet bomb schools, massacring innocent children who were not part of the war but merely trying to acquire Western Education which was and still is not regarded as dangerous in their own neck of the wood in Nigeria? Why massacre women who were just trying to hold the forte in the absence of their husbands and breadwinners who were engaged in the war effort? Why bomb baby Jesus laying innocently in the later when tons of bombs were dropped in churches, leveling them an sometimes with worshippers praying for the war to end? Why bomb market places as well as refugees running for their dear lives? 

Anyway, this is the beef Biafrans had with the then Nigerian side, especially the men who directed that evil machination against their supposed BIafran brothers and sisters who they wanted to bring back to Nigeria, may be as dead bodies only? So now you get it those who continuously question what does the Biafran people expect the Nigerian government to do faced with a seceding Biafra? This also forms the current near vitriol opposition to the presidential candidate of the APC, Muhammadu Buhari, a participant in that ungodly atrocity. This is why Icheoku and other sensitive Biafrans are so incensed at the insensitivity of the  APC in recklessly chosing Muhammadu Buhari as their presidential candidate; and now trying without ceasing and deceitfully too, to further rubbish our general psyche by forcing him on Nigeria as president? 

So readers, please understand that the struggle is not necessarily against the Hausa/Fulani or the APC as a party for that matter. No, some of us does not even care much about Jonathan, but strongly resent and reject the thoughtless choice of this man who has caused so much sorrow and tears amongst a people. Our effort is directed against the APC's insensitive thumping of their nose on these various sensitivities with their choice of Muhammadu Buhari. Icheoku once penned an article titled "APC, why not Rotimi Amaechi for presidential candidate" and meant it. Also many of us anti-Buhari activists would have, by extension, equally accepted Governor Kwankwaso or Abubakar Atiku as bona fide APC choice candidate for the presidential contest BUT definitely and certainly not Muhammadu Buhari. As with in every democracy, people should have choices of candidates to choose from but not the present dreg from the bottom of the sewer called Muhammadu Buhari. 

Icheoku asks the APC to seriously, leaving propaganda aside, share with Nigerians their clear road map of getting such a very loathed and highly divisive mongrel like Muhammadu Buhari into Aso Rock short of rendering the land waste trying?  What chance in hell of getting elected, does someone with such gargantuan baggage as Muhammadu Buhari stand come February 14, 2015 by a plurality of Nigerian votes? Almost every Biafran lost someone to either kwashiorkor or bullets or bombs or avoidable deaths. Some people did not know what happened to their beloved parents and grandparents including uncle and aunts as well as other relatives who were too old or too sick to run along  during the war and have no identifiable grave sites to once in a while say prayers for the repose of their souls; admitted so of them were devoured by hungry dogs and other beasts that took over desolate habitations. 

So people, it is not about an opposition candidate stand for election against an incumbent; no, it is about who that opposition candidate is. Icheoku says Muhammaud Buhari is a sadistic sicko, psycho and pathological maniac who drives joy in seeing others suffer from his torture. He did it before and there is no guarantee he would not do it again; after all at his very advanced age, he cannot learn anything new or better than what he is used to. This is the same man who previously destroyed a budding democracy in Nigeria and you wonder which manner of persons, walking straight on their two legs and privileged of having functioning brains in their heads, would ever contemplate accepting this very BUHARI as their elected president? Irrespective that some users of men have already anointed him as their presidential candidate for the sole reason of using him as a ladder to get to the low hanging fruits of Nigeria; but must Nigerians buy into this decrepitude person? 

But you know what, Icheoku is now already madly sad, merely thinking about this impending assault on Nigeria's general psyche, particularly the Biafran victims of Muhammadu Buhari involved genocide, to contemplate the funereal fog his "election" will throw on the polity.  So Nigerians, take a  look at Icheoku in the picture above, a victim of Muhammadu Buhari's homicidal war of acute starvation and please help Icheoku send a clear message to him, that the International Criminal Court at The Hague would be a preferred place to send him as an accused war criminal, but definitely not to Aso Rock as president of a free and democratic Nigeria. So on February 14, VOTE GEJ and in any other event or disposition, stay home; but please do not in otherwise get involved or partake in this evil genocide or encourage this maniacal despot secure a seal of approval of his awful past activities with your vote.

BUHARI IS NOT THE CHANGE NIGERIANS DESIRE NOR DESERVE !!!

Icheoku says please Nigerians look at Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and ask yourselves do you want a sleeping grandpa managing the affairs of your country and WHY? On February 14, VOTE GEJ, a younger man with a more steady hand on the tiller as the preferred watchman.

LAMIDO, STAYING PUT IN PDP

"The allegation of my possible defection to APC is bunkum." - Sule Lamido, Jigawa State Governor.