By Doris Israel Ijeoma
The Enugu State Government has issued a strong warning to schools and markets that participate in the contentious one-week sit-at-home order declared by a faction of the banned Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
Simon Ekpa, the leader of the faction of IPOB, had announced the sit-at-home order in a statement on June 14th.
He stated that the action would take place from July 3rd to 5th, and then continue from July 7th to 10th. Ekpa, who identifies himself as the prime minister of the “Biafra Republic Government in Exile,” called for the release of Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of IPOB, and the preparation of a self-referendum for Biafra.
However, Emma Powerful, the spokesperson for the IPOB faction led by Nnamdi Kanu, later disowned the declaration, stating that the sit-at-home order did not originate from their group. In response to reports that some private schools were informing parents of their closure for a week due to the sit-at-home order, the Enugu State Government issued a statement on Tuesday through the Secretary to the State Government, Chidiebere Onyia.
The government warned private school owners that failure to open their schools and operate normally would result in the immediate revocation of their licenses. Market unions and shop owners were also cautioned, with a demand for all markets and shops to be open for business or face indefinite closure. The Enugu State Government restated its ban on sit-at-home orders issued by non-state actors, assuring residents that security measures were in place to protect lives and property.
The government expressed its discontent with faceless groups and individuals attempting to dictate the lives of the people by issuing unlawful orders, such as when to work, go to the market, or send their children to school.
It declared that such behavior would no longer be tolerated and vowed to confront and defeat it using all available resources. The government further warned individuals spreading false information to intimidate residents into observing the sit-at-home order, emphasizing that they would be prosecuted under the Cybercrime Act of 2015.
Leave a Reply