Biafra: IPOB faults Financial Times report
The leadership of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has faulted a report of the Financial Times of London, on its leader, Nnamdi Kanu.
The group said the newspaper went contrary to the ethics of investigative professional journalism in the report on Kanu.
IPOB said the headline of the report, titled ‘Echoes of Biafra war as Nigeria looks to polls,’ is a case in hand.
In a statement signed by IPOB’s Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful, he said in the report, it was obvious that there were deliberate and noticeable misrepresentations evidenced in the over reliance on fake or unverified information of the newspaper from third parties and Nigerian government in particular.
“Given the sensitivities surrounding the clamour for Biafra independence led Kanu’s IPOB and the heavy handedness of the Buhari regime widely documented by reputable global human rights organisations, it would have been prudent for an institution like the Financial Times to report the facts accurately.
“This unprofessional conduct calls for holistic review on the part of the proprietors of the Financial Times. It is our position that, had a reputable media organisation like Financial Times embarked on investigating their sources of information before hand, they would have been well-informed of the fact that IPOB is non-violent in their quest for restoration of Biafra…
“Does it mean that the editors of Financial Times did not see and in fact, know that Nnamdi Kanu is not in hiding, but, instead, was taken away when his home was invaded and 28 people killed?
“Did they not see the bullet riddled house and damage done to his family home?
“Are they not aware of the existence of a video taped interview clearly showing the Defence Minister, Mansur Dan Ali admitting that they sent soldiers to Kanu’s home?
“Where went the conscience of the highly-revered editors of this reputable publishing giant before they authorised this misleading report?
“We remind them that all these information that we have pointed out to them are publicly available and as a consequence, demand that they rectify the monumental errors of omission and misrepresentations in their report.
“Otherwise, we can only firmly conclude that they have joined the league of ‘fake news’ club.”
