The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Biafra

  • Final sunset for Biafra agitation?

    Final sunset for Biafra agitation?

    • By Ezinwanne Onwuka

    Sir: The Biafran struggle has suffered yet another devastating blow. And many sympathisers are struggling to come in terms with this latest roadblock since the secessionist struggle began in 1967.

    Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, the military governor of the Eastern Region, declared the region as an independent sovereign state named the Republic of Biafra on May 30, 1967. On July 6, 1967, the federal government launched a ‘police action’ to repress the secession. This escalated into a civil war, which lasted 30 months, to preserve the sovereignty of Nigeria as one ‘indissoluble and indivisible state’ and to reintegrate Biafra as part of Nigeria. That period remains one of the darkest chapters of Nigeria’s history. Millions of lives were lost – many fell to bullets and others to starvation.

    Decades after Yakubu Gowon nipped the secessionist attempt in the bud, the struggle for Biafra still lingers. A radical rebirth of the struggle was championed by Nnamdi Kanu with the creation of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) in 2012. Before the establishment of IPOB, Kanu spread his separatist gospel through Radio Biafra, an iteration of the broadcast network established by the defunct Biafran government in 1967. Beyond advocating for the independence of Biafra from Nigeria, he used the radio station to push inflammatory and often incendiary rhetoric that emboldened his loyalists to resort to violence in the name of Biafran struggle.

    Kanu was arrested in 2015. After spending a year in detention, he was granted bail on health grounds, but later went into hiding following a military raid on his home in Umuahia. He was rearrested in 2021 in Kenya and was extradited to Nigeria to resume trial on multiple counts of terrorism related to his separatist campaign. The trial came to an end on November 20, with his conviction on all seven counts and sentencing to life imprisonment as against the death penalty prescribed by law. His IPOB had been proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the government in 2017.

    Meanwhile, during Kanu’s incarceration, the agitation for secession did not cease. Simon Ekpa, a Finnish citizen of Nigerian descent, assumed de facto leadership of the movement and continued spreading the Biafran gospel. Just like Kanu, he portrayed violent resistance as a necessary tool for the liberation of the Igbos from the ‘zoo’. Ekpa, using social media, declared sit-at-home lockdowns in the southeast to protest the detention of Kanu and to press for the actualisation of the Republic of Biafra. He was picked up by Finnish authorities in November 2024 on allegations of sponsoring terrorist activities in Nigeria. In September, the Päijät-Häme District Court in Finland sentenced him to six years in prison after convicting him of terrorism-related offences, including inciting the public to commit crime for terrorist purposes.

    Read Also: NAF: why our aircraft made precautionary landing in Burkina Faso

    With these emotion-provoking developments that are only two months apart, Gowon’s words: “The ‘rising sun of Biafra’ is set forever” readily comes to mind. Once again, we witness the Biafran struggle brought to its knees. Though there is a difference between struggle of 1970 and that of today: in Ojukwu’s time, the Republic of Biafra was a reality though it was short-lived; in contrast, the twenty-first-century agitation never materialised into something tangible. For years, strife, anarchy, chaos, violence, and mayhem were deployed by the now-jailed separatist leaders all in the name of fighting for self-determination. Yet, nothing was achieved. The only visible results were the bloodshed and economic ruin that became the order of the day across the south-eastern states.

    It is important to state that self-determination is indeed a legally recognised right under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, domesticated in Nigeria. Article 20 describes the right as “unquestionable and inalienable.” But this right does not legitimise violence, coercion, or terror. The usual sit-at-home orders primarily affect his own people. The killings of people who disobey the order are his own people. Ordering of closure of churches, schools, as well as markets also affects his own people. They are unable to trade, go to school, farm, or even worship on such days. The threats of violence and death have prevented the people from going about their legitimate business. Are these acts…consistent with agitation for self-determination?

    As the dust from Kanu’s conviction has yet to settle and his supporters continue to cry foul, some questions hang heavily in the air: What is the future of the Biafran struggle? Has the ‘rising sun of Biafra’ finally set as Gowon triumphantly declared in 1970? Or will this be a case of silencing the messenger but not the message?

    •Ezinwanne Onwuka,

    ezinwanne.dominion@gmail.com.

  • Biafra again?

    Biafra again?

    Biafra took a plum place at a recent literary fest known as the Quramo Book Festival that holds annually in Lagos. I was a member of a panel that also starred writer Professor Dul Johnson, film maker Emeka Ed Keazor, soldier and writer General Akintunde Akinkunmi, host of books on Channels Television Kunle Kasunmu, who also laid the context for the parley.

    Novelist Tade Ipadeola held the time, pulse and tempo as moderator.

    The title, a mouthful, was “961 Days, Brothers at War. Never again…” I spent quite some time reflecting on the points and narratives of the panelists, and the first is the topic’s relevance today, even as top men in the east are asking for Nnamdi Kanu’s release even though he has not renounced Biafra.

    They guarantee his good behaviour when he has not even made any such pledge. They want the president to upend the rule of law by setting him free.

    The other side of the story is the subliminal rage on the streets and even among the Igbo intelligentsia, a temperament not yet canalized or defined in public. Sometimes it is a boiling kettle without a whistle.

    Two things the other panelists said cut me to the quick.

    Filmmaker Keazor recalled an incident with his mother who was seized by a moment of distemper and slapped her son for no reason.

    It was an onset of PTSD, a reflex of war trauma. The other was by Professor Johnson, whose life changed when only one of his three brothers returned from the war.

     There is no superior tragedy but his case had the dubious mercy of numbers compared to the Second World War yarn of the Ryan family documented in the movie, Saving Private Ryan. Three brothers were already killed. War General Dwight Eisenhower ordered that the lone surviving brother must be saved.

    There were two issues for me as I reflected after the fete of ideas. One was ego. I asserted that the war was not necessary, and only ego precipitated it.

    I said the actors  were about 30 years of age, and their immaturities provoked the slaughter of innocents. Ojukwu and Gowon were about 30 years old, and the nation’s future lay in their callow hands.

    Ego set in because Ojukwu said he could not serve under Gowon as his Supreme Commander. General Akintunde, who wrote a book on the Nigerian army titled: Hubris, titillated the audience by tracking the careers of Gowon and Ojukwu, and how in alternating episodes each was the other’s superior until they both were promoted lieutenant colonel the same day.

    So, after Ironsi’s death, Gowon was made head of state having served as Ironsi’s chief of staff. Ojukwu would none of it.

    Read Also: Tinubu to son at 40: ‘You’ve made us proud, I know you’ll continue to make Nigeria proud’

     This happened in two contexts. One, the pogrom in the north that targeted Igbos especially but lapped up other southern groups including Efik, Ibibios, Urhobos, Itsekiris, etc, a point that drove me to work the minority angle in my novel, My Name is Okoro.

    Here again, we witnessed the error of age. The countercoup leader, Murtala Muhammed and his colleagues, shunned an important opportunity for peace.

    They could have accepted Brigadier Babafemi Ogundipe, the most senior army officer, as the head of state. If they did, they could have avoided the pogrom in the north, the battle between Ojukwu and Gowon and the civil war.

    It was Murtala’s erratic folly and his lack of political intelligence, including his advisers, that led to Nigeria’s tragic moment.

    Even then, when the pogrom happened, Ojukwu might have averted the war for a number of reasons. One, the prospective economy did not have the resources to win the war.

     The most important asset in a war is not a mere will, important as it is. Napoleon said, “Morale is to the physical as three is to one.” But the morale must be fed by a good economy. The same Napoleon asserted that “an army marches on its stomach.”

    Ojukwu and his advisers did not reckon on the stomach. Before the war, the eastern region relied on food, including fish and meat from outside.

    How do you start a war without a food economy? Hence, the soldiers kept raiding markets in the Midwest for food and sustenance.

    The Awolowo currency change and the food blockade worked because Biafra relied on food from outside. If its economy was able to produce its own food, then its currency would have worked for itself in spite of federal devastations.

    On the economy, Ojukwu made a gamble. He signed a deal with the Rothschild Bank of France guaranteeing sole exploration of oil wells he had not secured. It brought France into the Biafran side but too late indeed to change its fortunes.

    There are so many reasons for victory in war. But hubris, over the centuries, has played a role. Hence Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that, ‘’in analysing history, do not be too profound for often the causes are quite superficial.” Because of its weak economy, it could not equal the federal side in the acquisition of arms. Yet, having declared Biafra, he did not stay home. His soldier marched onto the Midwest and headed towards Lagos.

    A dissipation of scarce resources. Reminds one of Hitler’s “Operation Barbarossa.” Why did Ojukwu do so? His heart was still Nigerian, if he didn’t  know it.

    He wanted to be part of a country he was renouncing. Hence, when he died, I called him Omo Eko. He wanted to teach Gowon, who he called Jack, a lesson.

    That was hubris. He was in two binds. One, he could not feed his people without going out. He could not teach Gowon a lesson without conquering Lagos.

    He succeeded in neither. Biafra became a lost cause. Ojukwu spoke Yoruba, attended King’s College, lived in Lagos and blended with its metropolitan elan.

    So, If Murtala and his advisers did not make Ogundipe the head of state, Gowon did not seem to want a war. So, he declared a police state, and we had for some time what historians called a phony war in the beginnings of the Second World War tensions of soldiers without conflict.

    In Soyinka’s memoir, You Must Set Forth At Dawn, he recalls a meeting between Awolowo and Ojukwu to avert the war. But after a long talk ended, Ojukwu took, later that night, one of his associates to Awo’s chalet and told him he and his people had decided on war. He respected Awo too much to waste his time. Awo could not dissuade him.

    If Ojukwu walked to his people and said, “no war,” Christopher Okigbo had allegedly said even market women would stone him on the streets. He might have saved millions of lives, including Okigbo and, on the federal side, Adaka Boro. Winston Churchill misquoted: “It is better to jaw jaw than to war war.” The wartime leader actually said, “it is better to meet jaw to jaw than war.”

    Maybe Ojukwu relied on his officers. The Igbo had the better officers in the country, pound for pound. But in war, as in sports, one ingredient does not guarantee victory. Alexander Madiebo explained in his war memoirs that they did not have the armory.

    The war, in the final analysis, reflected the interdependence of the east with the rest of the country, and that was why Quramo fittingly titled the discussion, Brothers at War

    In spite of all these, the bitterness of Biafra creeps into any narrative of our oneness as a people. Is it because we have never had a real jaw-to-jaw confab or the jaw does not touch the mutual hearts? The answer to a slaughter is not another slaughter.

     The answer to the pogrom was not another one in the name of a civil war.

    In the United States, Donald Trump embodies the rebirth of American civil war malice fought in the 19th century. As novelist Viet Nguyen wrote, “A war is fought twice. One on the battlefields and the second in the mind.”

    It is better in the mind than on the battlefield, so long as it does not spill blood. We must learn not to have men not old enough for authority, who cannot distinguish between power and strength. The crisis of the 1960’s prospered on the hubris of politicians, especially in the Western Region. It is remarkable, as former inspector general of police  M.D. Yusufu reveals in a biography written by Ayo Opadokun, that the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) had opted out of the deal with Akintola and his NNDP. Northern leaders Kashim Imam and the Sardauna Ahmadu Bello told the colourful premier they did not want to be the source of his fight with his kinsmen anymore.Just a day before the January 15, 1966 coup when he was killed.

     Yusufu said he was a witness to the conversation with Akintola.

     What if the decision came two days or three before the coup?

    We might muse on what might have been, but we cannot but ponder on why Nigeria keeps going back to its problems as though we have not gone past them.

    Philosopher Nietzsche calls it “eternal return.” We keep exhuming our ill-tempered ghosts, just like in the line from the Poet Afred Lord Tennyson: “ O me…why have they not buried me deep enough?”

  • Biafra agitation must continue without violence, declares MASSOB

    Biafra agitation must continue without violence, declares MASSOB

    The Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), has declared that the agitation for Biafra must continue without violence.

    The group stated this Saturday in Awka, Anambra State, through a statement by its leader, Comrade Uchenna Madu.

    MASSOB is celebrating its 24 year formation on  September 13,1999, while remembering their brothers and sisters who lost their lives in the cause of the struggle.                         

    “Our non- violence MASSOB members died innocently with brave hearts for the Biafra cause, they were molested, mesmerized, humiliated, and brutally killed by the armed security agents of our oppressors.

    Read Also: Radio Biafra: Court admits transmitter allegedly smuggled into Nigeria by Kanu

    “Today, we the remnants of MASSOB activists also remember the parents of our fallen heroes, some are still traumatized, some are dead because of shock while others are living ghosts of themselves.

    “We are committedly, consistently and uncompromisingly agitating for an independent state of Biafra from Nigeria.

    “Biafra is the answer to the numerous subjective slavery; Nigeria subjected Ndigbo into, ranging from political, economic, academic, religious, cultural and social slavery.

    “MASSOB has resolved that 24 years of our long walk to freedom can never be jeopardized, compromised or corrupted.

    “MASSOB shall never relent in our non- violence Biafra struggle because the truth shall always prevail over falsehood,” the group said.

  • Biafra agitation must continue without violence -MASSOB

    Biafra agitation must continue without violence -MASSOB

    The Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) has declared that the agitation for Biafra must continue without violence.

    The group declared this on Saturday in Awka, Anambra in a statement by its leader, comrade Uchenna Madu

    MASSOB is celebrating  24th year of its while remembering brothers and sisters died in the cause of the struggle                              

    “Our non violence MASSOB members died innocently with brave heart for the Biafra cause, they were molested, mesmerized, humiliated, brutally killed by the armed security agents of our oppressors. 

    Read Also: Lies and embellished Biafra stories

    “Today, we the remnants of MASSOB activists also remembers the parents of our fallen heroes, some are still traumatized, some are dead because of shock while others are living ghost of themselves.     

    “We are committedly, consistently and uncompromisingly agitating for an independent state of Biafra from Nigeria.

    “Biafra is the answer to the numerous subjective slavery, Nigeria subjected Ndigbo into, ranging from political, Economic, Academic, Religious, Cultural and Social slavery. 

    “MASSOB has resolved that 24 years of our long walk to freedom can never be jeopardized, compromised or corrupted. 

    “MASSOB shall never relent in our non violence Biafra struggle because the truth shall always prevail over falsehood,” the group said. 

  • Lies and embellished Biafra stories

    Lies and embellished Biafra stories

    SIR: We are familiar with the fact that truth is the first casualty of war. The Nigerian civil war is not an exception in this regard. For some reasons, the proponents of Biafra still want us to believe that they have the monopoly of the truth. The truth is that Nigeria did not declare war on Biafra. It was Biafra that declared war on Nigeria. 

    Yakubu Gowon was a very reluctant warrior. He didn’t want brothers to spill brothers’ blood. He tried everything including granting a lot of concessions to Ojukwu in order to avoid the war. He was a man of peace. The proponents of Biafra always hang on to Aburi as if there was nothing happening in Nigeria before Aburi. It is very disturbing to see people so clear-eyed about Aburi but amnestic about what led to Aburi.

    If the Igbos had declared Biafra and stayed in their enclave, the story of Nigeria would have been different. After they declared Biafra, they invaded the Midwest Region and deposed Governor David Ejoor and appointed a Biafran as governor. The people of the Midwest Region saw hell and mayhem during the three months that the Biafrans occupied the Midwest. They conscripted people into the Biafran Army, raided banks and killed those who refused to join Biafra. It was on their way to Ore that they were pushed back by federal troops that were hurriedly assembled. Aburi was supposed to be a place for cessation of hostilities. No one sent Gowon to Aburi to rewrite the Nigerian constitution that was overthrown by the Igbo officers. That Aburi was the beginning and the end of Igbo bellicosity is a big lie. They have told this lie over and over that they are beginning to see it as the truth and they have wrapped this lie with all kinds of mythology.

    Why Aburi? This place was chosen because Ojukwu said he was not safe in any place in Nigeria. Fair enough. If Ojukwu had insisted on return to the status quo ante, maybe things would’ve been different. If you look at the body language of Ojukwu and Gowon during those meetings, you could see that Gowon was very pliant. He was ready to do anything to avoid that war. It was Ojukwu who came with battery of lawyers and made impossible demands. The Igbos forgot that we had a constitution that guaranteed regional autonomy that was abrogated by Aguiyi-Ironsi who also abolished the regions and introduced the unitary system that started Nigeria on this perilous path.

    Read Also: Radio Biafra: Court admits transmitter allegedly smuggled into Nigeria by Kanu

    I am always amazed when Southeast people refuse to acknowledge the role they played in ushering Nigeria to our present hell. Ojukwu studied history at Oxford. He must have known what befall a people who lose wars. Instead of negotiating for ceasefire in Aburi, he came with a team of lawyers to rewrite a constitution of Nigeria in another land. We had a constitution which was overthrown in a coup by Igbo officers. Why is it difficult for the Igbos to understand that Ojukwu had no means to enforce any agreement?

    This is the core issue that the Biafrans have refused to understand to this day. I have always said these actors were very young. It is not out of place to ascribe some of their actions to youthful exuberance. The more I read about Aburi, the more I find out that Ojukwu was more interested in headlines and his Oxford credentials which were impressive and were highly blown in foreign newspapers. The foreigners were not going to fight his war.  What Ojukwu and his lawyers demanded at Aburi were not anything within the power of Gowon. All the things Ojukwu asked for could only have been addressed in a parliament of the Nigerian people. There was no parliament. Those who were in the know when Gowon returned made it clear to Gowon that what he negotiated with Ojukwu were not within his powers. All attempts to make the Igbos to understand that what Ojukwu got from Aburi is not tenable and will not be accepted by the rest of Nigeria fell on deaf ears – hence the Mantra, “On Aburi We Stand”.

    I repeat: no one sent two soldiers to another country to rewrite the Nigerian constitution. Nigerians refused to succumb to this blackmail by the Igbos. In any case, there were other negotiations. There was Arusha and there was Kampala. Biafra had no legitimacy and wherewithal to enforce their one-sided accord. The rest is history. The myopia of the Biafra is a deliberate affliction. Let us move forward.

    • Dr Austin A. Orette, Houston, Texas, United States
  • 58 Years after: Biafra and the challenge to national unity (2)

    58 Years after: Biafra and the challenge to national unity (2)

    The search for peace saw Nigerian leaders journeying to Aburi, Ghana, in such a gathering did lie the nation’s last hopes for a peaceful resolution, while the eastern contingent led by Colonel Ojukwu came to that meeting understanding the import of such a meeting and the grave consequences  of not finding a lasting solution  to ending the bloodshed, the killings and the displacement of over 3 million Eastern Region citizens came to that meeting prepared to the hilt, Gowon on the other hand came to the meeting with the impression that it was an old boys reunion, something of an officer’s mess gathering irrespective of the gloom that pervaded the air then. To Gowon and his ilk it didn’t matter that over 500 000 Eastern region citizens had been killed and another 500,000 or more maimed and displaced, what was more important was that the regions return to the status quo.

    It is alleged that Ojukwu rebuffed such a posturing and demanded that concrete steps be taken one that would provide for a confederation of regions with significant autonomy, particularly in matters of finance and security. For Ojukwu and the Eastern Region, this arrangement offered the region the protection they sought while remaining within Nigeria. For Gowon and the federal government, it provided a framework for keeping Nigeria together despite the centrifugal forces threatening to tear it apart.

    However, upon returning to Nigeria, Gowon facing pressure from minority technocrats who viewed the Aburi Agreement as a betrayal of the minorities who were seeking to establish some form of independence from the supposed Igbo domination and a capitulation to Eastern demands. Legal advisors argued that the confederal arrangement agreed upon at Aburi was tantamount to dismembering Nigeria. Federal civil servants, led by Permanent Secretary Allison Ayida, produced memoranda highlighting the dangers of implementing the Aburi decisions.

    Rather than seek a rapprochement with Ojukwu to at least arrive at  further middle grounds took the  eventual decision to repudiate key aspects of the Aburi Accord, this proved to be a fatal miscalculation and set Ojukwu who had earlier adopted a dovish stance towards the path of secession.  This betrayal of the Aburi spirit convinced Ojukwu and many Easterners that the federal government could not be trusted and that peaceful coexistence within Nigeria was impossible.

    Read Also: No fight between Ooni and I, says Alaafin

    Lieutenant Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu stands at the center of the Biafran controversy, and his motivations remain a subject of intense debate. Critics argue that his declaration of Biafra was motivated by personal ambition and a desire to create his own kingdom where he could rule as a strongman. However, these critics forget that the repudiation of the  Aburi Accords placed Ojukwu in a quagmire, how could he look his people in the face, a people rife with anger and repeatedly clamouring that ojukwu nye anyi egbe( Ojukwu give us guns) and do otherwise? How could he ask his kinsmen and women to go on with one Nigeria when on two occasions he had done so only for another set of pogroms to be unleashed on them?

    However, a more nuanced examination of the circumstances suggests that Ojukwu was responding to genuine threats to the survival of his people. The systematic killings of Easterners, the massive refugee crisis, and the federal government’s apparent inability or unwillingness to protect Eastern lives created an existential situation that demanded decisive action. The Eastern Region Consultative Assembly, comprising traditional rulers, intellectuals, and community leaders, had unanimously mandated Ojukwu to take any action necessary to protect Eastern lives, including secession if required.

    Ojukwu’s own statements and actions suggest that he viewed secession as a last resort rather than a preferred option. His consistent advocacy for the implementation of the Aburi Accord, even after declaring independence, indicates that he would have preferred a confederal arrangement within Nigeria. The timing of the Biafran declaration, coming only after Gowon’s repudiation of Aburi, the imposition of an economic blockade on the East and the provocative creation of states supports the argument that Ojukwu was pushed into secession rather than actively seeking it.

    The die was cast and on May 30, 1967, Ojukwu declared the independence of the Republic of Biafra, named after the Bight of Biafra. Gowon responded by declaring a state of emergency and mobilizing federal forces to preserve Nigerian unity.

    The war that followed was characterized by immense suffering on all sides. What began as a conflict over political arrangements evolved into a humanitarian catastrophe that claimed over one million lives, mostly civilians who died from starvation and disease. The international community became involved, with various countries supporting different sides for their own strategic reasons, further complicating efforts at resolution.

    The Nigerian Civil War offers profound lessons about the fragility of national unity and the catastrophic consequences of political failure. The crisis demonstrated how quickly ethnic suspicions readily escalate into violence particularly when political institutions fail to manage diversity effectively. It highlights the dangers of winner-take-all politics in multi-ethnic societies and showed how military intervention, far from solving political problems, can exacerbate existing tensions.

    However, more than five decades after the war’s end, Nigeria and its key actors appears to have learned little from this traumatic experience. Contemporary political discourse still revolves around ethnic and religious identities rather than issues of governance and development. The rise of various separatist movements, including the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), suggests that the underlying issues that led to the original crisis remain unresolved. Political leaders continue to manipulate ethnic and religious differences for short-term gains, while the federal system remains skewed in ways that perpetuate feelings of marginalization among various groups.

  • Biafra: A conversation is needed

    Biafra: A conversation is needed

    By Ray Ekpu

    Nigerians are largely keeping quiet about the activities of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). Maybe they are doing so because a few years ago the Federal Government had declared the organisation a terrorist organisation, and so they do not want to be terrorists by association. Or maybe Nigerians are waiting to see how the trial of its leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, at the Federal High Court in Abuja, will go. Or perhaps this siddon-look posture is because Mr Simon Ekpa, one of the promoters of the Biafra cause, is undergoing a trial in Finland for activities connected with terrorism in Nigeria. Or maybe Nigerians are simply saying to themselves that if the young people promoting the cause choose to destroy Igboland, they can do so because that is their territory.

    But the truth is that whatever happens in one part of Nigeria invariably affects other parts of Nigeria, or is likely to have some kind of reverberating effect on our country as a whole.

    Last Friday, May 30, there was a sit-at-home order issued by the IPOB. The IPOB spokesman, Mr Emma Powerful, explains that the action was intended to honour those who lost their lives while fighting for Biafra independence since the struggle began in 1987. The IPOB is leading the struggle for an independent State of Biafra which it wants carved out of the SouthEast region. That struggle was started by the military governor of the Eastern Region, Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, and it ended in a colossal failure in January 1970. It is now 50 years and five months since that war ended.

    By conservative estimates, the war took to the grave not less than one million lives and billions of properties. It is obvious that almost all the proponents of a Biafra Republic today were not born or, at best, were toddlers when that war was fought. They may have read some books on the war and the misery, the madness and the mayhem that accompanied it; but it is not the same thing as witnessing it live, seeing your relatives shot dead in your presence, seeing your sister or daughter taken away to give comfort to soldiers in their trenches.

    They, the young men who are pushing this Biafra dream afresh, have no idea what is involved. They have no idea that they are riding a tiger and when you ride a tiger, you cannot dismount. Their response to this may be that there is a risk in crossing the street, and there is also a risk in not crossing the street.

    It is estimated that in the last four years since the sit-at-home drama started, the SouthEast may have lost at least N8 trillion. That is the equivalent of about N2 trillion per year. And that is a colossal sum of money for any country, no matter how rich, to lose by its indiscretion. Don’t forget that there are other losses, through natural and human causes, such as flooding, erosion, gas flaring, drought, rainlessness, deforestation and oil pollution etc. And the SouthEast is a territory that is cushioned by businesses run by shop owners, wholesalers, retailers, craftsmen, artisans, transporters and industrialists. They have huge shops in Onitsha, Aba, Nnewi and several other towns that give life to Igboland. In those shops you can find – and buy – almost anything you want.

    But these disruptions of life and business go further than these immediate losses. The fact that force is being used by these IPOB fellows and their agents means that they cannot hope to have local or foreign investors coming with their money to invest in a territory that the ease of doing business is nil. No matter how exotic the natural and man-made resources are in the territory, tourists, local or foreign, cannot be tempted to fly in there and savour these endowments without fear for their lives. That is a strong disincentive to investment in the territory because those who attack and kill people in these areas do not discriminate between indigenes and visitors. They simply want all and sundry to stay at home and eat food, if they have, and watch television if they have light. And it will take many years and much effort to restore the confidence of investors in the economy of that region.

    But let’s move away from the economy because such problems affect more than the economy. They affect national unity and stability. There are five elected governors in the zone, and yet there is an authority that issues orders and people obey. That amounts to a miniaturisation of power in the zone, and it makes the five governors to feel hapless and helpless, and the Federal Government to wonder what, in fact, it can do about the situation.

    Yes, the leader of the IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, is being tried in court. This has been going on for four years or so now. The longer the case lasts the more problematic it becomes. Every time Kanu is taken to court, the SouthEast region is on edge and no one knows what may happen next. Before President Muhammadu Buhari left office, a number of Igbo leaders had approached him and requested that Kanu be freed. He told them that it was a very difficult problem. They went away without getting any assurance that Kanu would be freed any time within his period in office. And he left office without Kanu being freed.

    I am not sure whether Igbo leaders are making any moves, overt or covert, in that direction as the ding-dong game goes on in court. It is easy to understand the government’s reluctance to order for the release of a man who is being tried for treasonable offences. That would seem like encouraging other would-be terrorists or similar crime suspects, particularly as the government knows that a Nigerian, Simon Ekpa, is being tried in a foreign country for similar offences.

    The Igbos have been complaining of being marginalised. They point to the fact that since Dr Alex Ekwueme was elected as Vice President in 1979, no Igbo man has been in that position. And of course, no Igbo man has yet become President since the onset of the 4th Republic in 1999. But political positions are determined in a democracy through networking, compromises and adroit bargaining between persons and parties. If the Igbos have not yet been able to achieve that, they have themselves to blame. But not achieving that is not a sufficient reason for wanting a separate country at any cost, at least not by violence.

    Read Also: Top 10 Most Reliable Toyota Used Cars for Sale in Nigeria

    If the Igbos want a separate country, they can negotiate with Nigeria. It is not a decision that can be arrived at by force. Ojukwu tried it and failed. In any case, is there any evidence that most Igbos want a separate country? There is none, otherwise we would not have five Igbo leaders manning the affairs of their states today. They probably think that it is better to be a significant part of a whole than to seek to be a tiny whole.

    Marginalisation is a curable disease; and my view is that the Federal Government should initiate a conversation with Igbo leaders, or the Igbo leaders can make a push for such a discussion. We cannot just ignore these disruptions of life in Igboland in the hope that the security agencies can nip it in the bud. It is not just a security matter only. It is also a political renaissance story, the story of rebuilding Nigeria and its component parts.

    The establishment of Development Commissions in all the six geopolitical zones is a way of rearranging regional powers since we destroyed the strong federal structure that Yakubu Gowon gave to Nigeria with the 12- state structure. The creation of mini-states all over the place by the military governments has been a major distortion of the federal structure since it did not come with the devolution of more powers to the states.

    I urge President Bola Tinubu not to see what is happening in the SouthEast as simply an Igbo problem. It is a national problem that must not be allowed to linger unresolved, otherwise it may snowball into something we do not anticipate. There are too many centres of violence already that are threatening to turn Nigeria into a major killing field. And the more violence that spreads, the more difficult it will be for our security personnel to cope with. Mr President, please initiate action towards resolving the Biafra conundrum.

  • Before the next ‘Biafra Day’

    Before the next ‘Biafra Day’

    Businesses were paralysed again last Friday as residents of cities and communities in the South-east region stayed indoors in apparent commemoration of 2025 ‘Biafra Day.’ Not that they were voluntary commemorators. Many residents obliged the directive by proscribed separatist group, the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), to sit at home to avoid potential consequences of defiance. Meanwhile, the region loses monumentally in forfeited revenue every time commerce gets suspended.

    IPOB has for many years asked South-east residents to stay indoors on May 30th in honour of fallen heroes of the stillborn Biafra Republic. That directive was over time enforced by violence, with supposed members of the separatist group using lethal means to make residents sit at home as directed, resulting in many deaths. There has been de-escalation in enforcement vigour over recent years. But the dread of rogue enforcers lingers with most residents, making them err on the side of caution whenever the separatist group calls another sit-at-home.

    That was the case last Friday with government offices, banks, schools, marketplaces, motor parks, shopping centres, filling stations and restaurants paralysed and streets deserted as residents kept indoors in South-east states. Media reports cited some residents attributing the apparent compliance to fear of violence outdoors, while some said they used the day to rest after busy schedules earlier in the week.

    Read Also: Wike explains water shortage in Abuja, says rehabilitation of treatment plants underway

    A resident was reported saying the day could well be adopted as a cultural landmark region-wide to appease the historical sensibility of the people. “There’s nothing wrong for governments of South-east states to declare a public holiday every May 30th for Biafra Day. If it were in the South-west, their leaders would have pressed the Federal Government to declare a national holiday… Why must soldiers, police and other security agencies take on youths in the South-east because of Biafra Day? By so doing, people will continue the agitation and tension will persist,” he argued.

    Imo streets were deserted despite heavy security presence across the state and admonition that the residents should go about their normal business chores. Traders who spoke with journalists said they stayed away to avoid attack on their business premises under whatever guise; even when Imo police command spokesperson, Henry Okoye, pledged readiness by security agencies to ensure safety of lives and property. “Joint security operatives have been strategically deployed across the 27 council areas of the state. These operatives are currently undertaking intensive confidence-building patrols and operation show-of-force to deter criminal elements and reassure members of the public,” he said.

    It seems obvious that while separatist actors have lost the hearts of residents of the region, they rule their minds with fear of the unknown. Authorities in the South-east must thus find what works to dispel this fear and free the people to operate their normal lives, so the periodic haemorrhage on the regional economy is stopped.

  • 63 Years after: Biafra and the challenge to national unity (1)

    63 Years after: Biafra and the challenge to national unity (1)

    The Nigerian Civil War of 1967-1970, commonly known as the Biafran War, remains one of the most traumatic chapters in Nigeria’s post-independence history. This conflict, which erupted barely seven years after independence, challenged the very foundations of our unity and exposed deep-seated ethnic, religious, and political tensions that had been simmering beneath the surface of the fragile federation. The war’s origins, progression, and aftermath continue to reverberate through Nigerian society today, serving as a stark reminder of how quickly national cohesion can unravel when political leadership fails and ethnic suspicions override national interests.

    The seeds of this crisis were sown in the turbulent political landscape of the First Republic. Nigeria’s independence in 1960 had created a federal structure that reflected the country’s ethnic and regional diversity, but this arrangement soon became a source of intense competition and mutual suspicion. The Northern People’s Congress (NPC), the National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC), and the Action Group (AG) represented different regional and ethnic interests, creating a political system where national unity was subordinated to regional loyalties.

    The disputed federal elections of 1964 and the controversial Western Region elections of 1965 exposed the fragility of Nigeria’s democratic institutions. Violence erupted across the Western Region, and the federal government’s partisan response further undermined confidence in the political system. Against this backdrop of political crisis, a group of young military officers majorly from the Eastern region, staged a coup on January 15, 1966.

    READ ALSO: Eight ways to easily spot a fake phone in Nigeria

    Led by Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu and other idealistic officers, the coup aimed to cleanse Nigerian politics of corruption and tribalism. However, the selective nature of the assassinations during the coup created an entirely different narrative. Key Northern and Western political leaders, including Prime Minister Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Northern Premier Sir Ahmadu Bello, and Western Premier Chief Samuel Akintola, were killed, while Eastern leaders largely escaped harm, whilst this wasnt primarily an Igbo agenda as skeptics have since tagged it, the  pattern in which the coup was interpreted by many Northerners as an Igbo conspiracy to dominate Nigeria.

    The tensions that had been building since January erupted violently on July 29, 1966, when Northern officers staged a counter-coup. This second military intervention was characterized by unprecedented ethnic targeting and systematic violence. Unlike the January coup, which had targeted specific political leaders, the July counter-coup specifically hunted down Eastern officers and civilians, particularly those of Igbo extraction.

    The senseless killings during and after the July 29 counter-coup marked a dark turning point in Nigerian history. Hundreds of Eastern officers were murdered in their barracks, many in the most brutal circumstances. Lieutenant Colonel Hilary Njoku barely escaped with his life. The violence was not limited to military personnel; civilians of Eastern origin were systematically targeted across Northern Nigeria.

    General Aguiyi-Ironsi himself fell victim to this ethnic cleansing. He was abducted and murdered along with his host, Lieutenant Colonel Adekunle Fajuyi, in Ibadan. The manner of their deaths sent shockwaves throughout the country and demonstrated that no one, regardless of rank or position, was safe from the ethnic hatred that had been unleashed.

    The aftermath of the counter-coup witnessed even more horrific scenes. In cities across the North, Eastern civilians, particularly Igbos, were hunted down and killed in markets, mosques, schools, and even hospitals where they had sought refuge. Conservative estimates put the death toll in the thousands, though the exact number may never be known. Women and children were not spared in this orgy of violence, and property worth millions was destroyed. The scale and systematic nature of these killings convinced many Easterners that their safety could no longer be guaranteed anywhere in Nigeria outside their region.

    From this chaos emerged Lieutenant Colonel Yakubu Gowon, a Middle Belt Christian,  who was seen as a shoe in for the powers who had always seen Nigeria as their project  . Gowon’s rise to power was rather the institutionalization of indiscipline in the army as he wasnt the most senior officer.His initial actions also betrayed his posture as a belligerent Commander in Chief.

    However, Gowon faced enormous challenges. The Eastern Region, led by Lieutenant Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, refused to recognize his authority, arguing that Gowon was junior to both himself and Brigadier Ogundipe in the military hierarchy and that his assumption of that position violated established military protocols. More fundamentally, the massive exodus of Easterners from other parts of Nigeria had created a humanitarian crisis that demanded immediate attention.

    The search for a peaceful resolution led to several initiatives, the most significant being the Aburi Conference held in Ghana in January 1967. Under the auspices of Ghanaian leader General Joseph Ankrah, Nigerian military leaders met to find a solution to the escalating crisis. The conference initially seemed successful, with all parties agreeing to a loose confederal arrangement that would give regions greater autonomy while maintaining Nigerian unity.

  • Obasanjo: punishing Igbo for January 1966 coup, Biafra unfair

    Obasanjo: punishing Igbo for January 1966 coup, Biafra unfair

    • ‘Three major ethnic groups attempted to break up Nigeria through secession’ 

    • Ex-President hosts Shekarau, 19 northern leaders

    Former President Olusegun Obasanjo has said it is unfair to blame only the Igbo for attempting to secede from Nigeria.

    He said Nigeria’s three major ethnic nationalities had at one time or the other attempted to break up the country through secession.

    The former President said he usually felt bad each time he heard some people saying no Igbo man would become Nigeria’s President because of the ethnic nationality’s involvement in the bloody January 15, 1966 coup that truncated the First Republic.

    He said there were Nigerians from other parts of the country who also attempted to secede from the country.

    Obasanjo bared his mind while addressing a 20-man delegation of the League of Northern Democrats, led by a former Kano State Governor Ibrahim Shekarau at the Olusegun Obasanjo Presidential Library (OOPL) in Abeokuta, the Ogun State capital.

    The elder statesman recalled that there was a strong move by the North to pull out of Nigeria through what he called the vehicle of “Araba”.

    He said: “I think all of us in Nigeria have to rethink… It bleeds my heart when people say because the Igbo had carried out a secession and so an Igbo man cannot be the president of Nigeria.

    “I say what nonsense? There is no section of Nigeria that has not planned a succession. What is “Araba” in the North? The North planned to break up Nigeria. Ahmed Jooda, a very good friend of mine, said that.

    Read Also: Sanwo-Olu, Anyaoku, religious leaders hail Iwuanyanwu’s legacy 

    “What is treasonable felony? So, who among us can say I am better than the other? None! So, let us put our heads together and build a country together.”

    Obasanjo noted that many Nigerians shared the worries the National League of Democrats expressed.

    The ex-President said he would support the group if it has a national outlook instead of the present provincial or regional identity.

    He said: “You talked about your concerns. If there is anybody that is not concerned about the situation in Nigeria today, then he or she will need to have himself or herself examined.

    “I believe your concerns must be shared and understood. I know everywhere I go in Nigeria, people express their concerns. So, the expression of your concerns is understood by many.

    “I said maybe we have made mistakes in the past; maybe myself too made mistakes in the past. But whatever may be our mistakes in the past, we do not want to repeat those mistakes.

    “You said I am a believer in the greatness of this country. Yes, I am. I am also an incurable optimist in this country. I am totally committed to the goodness of this country. But I believe that if we look back and we want to be sincere with ourselves, we can see some of the mistakes of the past which we must not fall into again.

    “So, anytime I hear the North, the West, the East, I feel frightened. That is my honest opinion, because one of the things that have led us into where we are today and we haven’t gone out of is regionalism.

    “At the time of our Independence, we were probably the only country or one of the few countries in Africa that did not have one leader. At independence, we had three leaders. So, we attained independence with putting three countries in one and that remains part of our problems for a long time, and it hasn’t completely left us.

    “So, when you give the name of your league as Northern League of Democrats, my opinion was how I wish it had been National League of Democrats? But I will also say that you have to begin from somewhere. One of the things I always question myself about is why should my being a proud Yoruba man be in the way of my being a Nigerian? I could as well have been born in Sokoto. The fact that I was born in Yoruba land was not my making; it was God’s making because I could as well have been born in Maiduguri and I will still be a Nigerian…”