USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re:

Oguagbu:

Let us not call this discredited. Let us search for the proceeds of the fund and beneficiarues before pronouncing judgment. We now its an emotional issue. Let us moderate our conclusions with evidence.  i.e.  such  and such is my uncle.  He actualky left £6000 in a Lagos bank.  He produced evidence that it was his but was not given or was given £20 in lieu.  My aunt applied for money under the Fund. She was refused for such and such.reason.

Peace....

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

-------- Original message --------

From: Ogbuagu Anikwe <oanikwe@gmail.com>

Date: 10/07/2017 17:58 (GMT+00:00)

To: Olayinka Agbetuyi <yagbetuyi@hotmail.com>

Cc: Obi Nwakanma <rexmarinus@hotmail.com>, Salimonu Kadiri <ogunlakaiye@hotmail.com>, meochonu@gmail.com, usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com, Mobolaji ALUKO <alukome@gmail.com>

Subject: Re:

As a matter of fact, Yinka, I gave a hint that this was going to come into the discussion when Bolaji introduced it, and you amplify it thusly: 

"I read of people who left money in subtantial quantities who could prove it having their money back: I read of other people from Biafra who did not fall into that category being able to access a fund set up to enable them start all over again apart from the £20 issue."

On the first category, I pointed out before that Chief Awolowo stated that majority of the depositors could not access their money because of documentation challenges. Kadiri said that majority of Igbos were not putting their money in banks. That effectively destroyed the claim that majority of the returnees were better off after the war - before Bolaji now introduced the fund that presumably could be drawn by any returnee who wanted, to start life from scratch. My response was that we are (at least I am) awaiting details of this fund, how many returnees were able to access the facility and so forth. I was told the information is available and I intend to search for it.

What makes the issue so vexing is that majority of the people at the receiving end claim that they did not receive these funds but you are insisting - without proof - that they must have, since this is the only way to still prop up the original discredited claims.

Ogbuagu

On 10-Jul-2017 4:37 pm, "Olayinka Agbetuyi" <yagbetuyi@hotmail.com> wrote:

Oguagbu:

Your conclusion does not follow from what I read from the two postings you refer to:

I read of people who left money in subtantial quantities who could prove it having their money back: I read of other people from Biafra who did not fall into that category being able to access a fund set up to enable them start all over again apart from the £20 issue.

Perhaps this interpretation gets things clearer.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

-------- Original message --------

From: Ogbuagu Anikwe <oanikwe@gmail.com>

Date: 10/07/2017 02:59 (GMT+00:00)

To: usaafricadialogue@googlegroups.com

Cc: Salimonu Kadiri <ogunlakaiye@hotmail.com>, Mobolaji ALUKO <alukome@gmail.com>, Obi Nwakanma <rexmarinus@hotmail.com>, Olayinka Agbetuyi <yagbetuyi@hotmail.com>, meochonu@gmail.com, Ogbuagu Anikwe <oanikwe@gmail.com>

Subject:

Thank you, Mobolaji and Salimonu, for clearly establishing even when you didn't set out to do so

• that returnee Biafrans who came forward with old Nigerian currency from the enclave were denied the opportunity to have those exchanged for new Nigerian notes because they failed to exchange them within the window allowed by the CBN – and in spite of the fact that there was a law that could not have allowed them to do so even if they wanted to at that time; and

• that returnee Biafrans whose monies were in Nigerian banks during the war (and who therefore would not have had any need to exchange them since this was not cash and the banks would do the conversion automatically) also were not able to get back their deposits as long as they were unable to come up with their passbooks or cheques – since their account records with the banks were (conveniently?) destroyed during the war.

For me, the facts have now been clearly established with your testimonies.

I agree that it is a master stroke to have asked returnees to come forward with both Biafran and Nigerian currencies and, having captured them all, then determine that there was no way Nigerian could accommodate the exchange of the old (Nigerian) and the illegitimate (Biafran) currencies, thus paving the way for a kind and considerate £20 "dash," aka ex-gratia.

Since Kadiri continues to insist that only a handful of Igbos patronized banks prior to the war, is it then unreasonable to conclude that MAJORITY of Igbos began life after the Civil War with either NOTHING at all (since Biafran notes were rightly not considered legal tender) or made do with the £20 ex-gratia?

Who wants to disagree?

I suspect that Bolaji probably would as I notice that he has introduced another idea that may be deployed in the future to show that returnee Biafrans were paid other monies, in addition to the ex-gratia. We await full details of that one.

At the end of what would appear to be mockery of amateurish attempts by a desperate people to pick up their lives after surviving a horrendous war and their bumbling efforts to reap where they once sowed, we appear to have come full circle to the original proposition – which is that there was a deliberate, well thought-out strategy to ensure that those who misplaced or lost evidence of account ownership with banks were systematically dispossessed of their deposits because the banks, acting alone or under instructions, claimed that their account records no longer existed.

Ogbuagu
strategic communication . media brokerage . events services
p.o. box 5644 garki .
abuja fct 900001
+234 803 622-0298

Reply to: anikwe@oanikwe.com

Website: www.oanikwe.com