The Oraifite killings - The Nation Newspaper

Emeka Omeihe

Why an intra-communal feud turned bloody in Oraifite community in the Ekwusigo Local Government Area of Anambra State last week is a puzzle the authorities should entangle without much delay.

Was the matter escalated and given a lethal dimension because the name of Ifeanyi Ejiofor, lawyer to Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous Peoples of Biafra IPOB featured in the report lodged with the police? Is it one of those instances of poor handling of a misunderstanding by the police, error of judgment or both? These are the searing posers thrown up by that unfortunate encounter.

They are further given fillip because of the losses both in humans and properties of inestimable value that were said to have been snuffed out and destroyed during that incident.  In the aftermath of the encounter, the police claimed two of their senior officers were killed by IPOB members when they visited the family home of Ejiofor to effect his arrest following a report of his alleged involvement in a case of abduction, assault occasioning harm and malicious damage of properties.

But the stories making the rounds from the community had it that the security operatives drafted to the scene by the police unleashed mayhem on the family of Ejiofor leading to the alleged killing of two people even as many others received varying degrees of injury with properties of innocent citizens of the community razed down. Photographs of houses burnt down in the family home of the Ejiofors’ have also been trending in the social media.

For now, we are left with blame trading; claims and counterclaims as to the real circumstances of the event, the number of those killed, what provoked the killings and their motive. It is also yet to be ascertained between the police, the Ejiofor family and the IPOB who is responsible for the mishandling and escalation of the incident.  A judicial commission of inquiry where all parties will give evidence as to what actually transpired will resolve the riddle surrounding the unfortunate incident.

Before then however, there are basic facts of the unfortunate incident that will be hard to controvert. And these must be taken in their proper perspective for us to get at the root of the matter. The first is that Ejiofor was in his home town for the burial of his late elder step-brother, Louis Ejiofor and the burial ceremonies were just being concluded when the incident happened. Secondly, there was a crisis at another funeral ceremony in the community on Saturday, November 29, between two rival masquerade groups. Ejiofor is said to be the legal adviser of one of the rival masquerade groups. The feud had resulted to fisticuffs, injuries on both sides, abductions and the subsequent lodging of a report at the divisional police office in the area by one of the masquerade groups.

Those who lodged the report mentioned Ejiofor as one of the suspected masterminds of the fracas.  Following the report, the police sent some of their men to the house of Ejiofor apparently to arrest him. It is also very evident that prior to the report, Ejifor had no issues with the police authorities in that division. It is also a fact that deaths were recorded in the ensuing fracas. These are basic facts none of the contending parties can controvert. They will come handy in situating the role of the police in the turn of events that were to follow.

But there are divergences in the accounts of the police, eyewitnesses and the IPOB as to the sequence of events that followed on the arrival of the police; who attacked first and the issues that provoked that attack. This should not be surprising in matters of this nature that turned out awry. Buck passing is usually the game when issues that should have been handled more professionally are bungled. In such instances, we should expect blame game, denials, cover ups and half-truths. What are the real issues to the conflict?

Independent accounts, had it that when the police came to the family home of the Ejiofors’ the second time, they demanded to see him on account of the allegations levied against him. But on learning that he had not returned, they went furious and began to fire their weapons indiscriminately. The ensuing attacks killed two people and left many injured.

But in a statement on Monday, the police claimed that there was a report against one “Barr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor, ‘m’ (a member of the proscribed IPOB) in Oraifite on alleged case of abduction, assault occasioning harm and malicious damage of property”. They claimed when their team went to arrest Ejiofor over the complaints made against him, IPOB member immediately attacked them killing two of their men and setting their van ablaze.

Hear them: “Consequently, the command deployed reinforcements from the state headquarters comprising PMF, SARS, and special anti-cult units in conjunction with the army/other sister agencies who cordoned the area to flush out the culprits”.

The following day, the Anambra State Police Commissioner declared Ejiofor wanted in connection with the alleged killing of two police officers by members of the IPOB.

It is now the words of the police against that of Ejiofor and the IPOB. But the police admitted that they asked for reinforcement. It is not clear why they asked for reinforcement and the type of resistance they met on ground that required the aid of the army and other security agencies. Neither were we told that Ejiofor was arrested at the scene after the crisis since it was the main reason the police came to the place.

However, there are a number of fallouts from the two statements issued by the police on the matter. The first is the error in describing Ejiofor as a member of the proscribed IPOB. The second issue which evolved from his declaration as a wanted man is that he was not at home when the police visited and throughout the duration of the crisis. Had he been there, the police would have arrested him thus forestalling his being declared a wanted man the following day.

If these assumptions are right, on whose behalf were those alleged to have attacked he police team killing two of their men fighting? Who were they protecting since the IPOB lawyer was not around and who would have given them the order to attack the police?

These questions arise because the impression created was that the IPOB lawyer was at home at the time of the invasion and his resistance of arrest was responsible for the maximum force the police and its sister agencies unleashed on the community. But we cannot find evidence of this suggestion since Ejiofor was not there when the attack ensued.

There is no intention to hold brief for any of the parties to the conflict. But it is difficult to ignore the yawning gaps created by the narratives of the police on the issue. Not unexpectedly, those gaps have been at the heart of accusations that the security agencies acted the way they did because of their presumption that Ejiofor was a member of the IPOB. How they failed to make a distinction between a counsel to Nnamdi Kanu and membership of the outlawed self-determination group says a lot of the ruins that were visited on the home of the Ejiofors.

With such a mind-set, it was not surprising that excessive force was brought to bear in the attempt to arrest a man accused of abduction, assault and malicious damage of properties. It would seem the error of the police in tagging the lawyer a member of the IPOB was responsible for the level of damage wrought on that quiet community.

The incident was evidently mismanaged. And it says volumes on the attitude of law enforcement agencies in matters relating to the proscribed IPOB. That is something really to worry about. A serious inquisition into the Oraifite mayhem will unravel the riddle thrown up by the incident.