The new book by renowned author and literary icon Prof Chinua Achebe – There was a country – has continued to generate heat in the country. Former Federal Commissioner for Works and Housing Femi Okunnu (SAN), who was in government between 1967 and 1974, queries the allegations and claims made by the author. He spoke with Staff Correspondent Eric Ikhilae.
what is your assessment of the new book by Prof Chinua Achebe?
I have read only newspaper reports and excerpts from the book, (that was published in The Nation on October 5) written by that erudite Nigerian scholar, Professor Chinua Achebe. I am amazed at the extent of the intellectual dishonesty displayed by Prof. Achebe in alleging that the Federal Government under General Yakubu Gowon, in which I had the honour of serving, had a policy of denying our fellow Nigerians, who were trapped in Biafra, relief materials. There is no such policy by the government, in which I was a member.
Was it true that the then Federal Finance Commissioner Chief Obafemi Awolowo suggested to the government to adopt starvation as a war weapon?
Right from the declaration of war on May 27, 1967 until the cessation of hostilities in January 1970, to the best of my knowledge, whatever Chief Obafemi Awolowo might have said or said to have said, as reported by Prof Achebe, was not the Federal Government’s position. It was not the government’s policy at all. I say this as the leader or one of the leaders on the Federal Government side during the peace talks. Chief Anthony Enahoro (of blessed memory) led the federal delegation to the preliminary talks initiated by the then Commonwealth Secretary in London early in 1968. The talks shifted to Kampala, Uganda, with the then President of Uganda, Dr. Milton Obote, as the Chairman, who presided over the bilateral talks between the two sides. Chief Enahoro led the federal delegation to the talks in Kampala. I was not a member of either delegation, but I played a key role in the important peace talks, starting from Niamey unto Addis Ababa and Monrovia. In Niamey, Gen Gowon and Chief Awolowo were members of the federal delegation. Colonel Emeka Ojukwu also attended as leader of his own delegation. When the two leaders returned from Niamey, I led the federal delegation to the remainder of the talks, mostly to prepare the agenda for the substantive talks in Addis Ababa.
What was the focus of the various talks held between both sides?
The federal delegation left Lagos on August 3, 1968 for Addis-Ababa and the leader of the delegation was Chief Enahoro. I was the deputy leader. Col. Ojukwu attended the first day’s talks. The talks started on August 5 and was presided over by the Imperial Majesty, Emperor Haile Selassie. After a day or two, Col. Ojukwu left and turned over the leadership of his delegation to Professor Eni Njoku, who was Vice Chancellor, University of Lagos before the outbreak of hostilities. Chief Enahoro left after a week, leaving me as the leader of the federal delegation for the rest of the period.
The talks ended about the third week of September. And the main topic for our discussion was how to create corridors for the passage of relief materials from Nigeria, but mostly from outside the country, to our brothers, who were trapped within the Biafran enclave. The first week was taken up by political issues – cessation of hostilities and return of Biafra to the Nigerian Federation. When the talks on that issue was suspended, for the next four or five weeks, we were in Addis Ababa, with me as the leader of the federal delegation and Prof Njoku as the leader of the Biafran delegation, discussing various corridors which we proposed for passage of relief materials to Biafra.
We discussed air corridor, we discussed land corridor; we discussed sea and river corridors, no holds barred. But unfortunately, the various proposals, which we brought forward were turned down by the other side. We couldn’t reach any good conclusion. So, to say that there was deliberate policy of the Federal Government, initiated by Chief Awolowo, is at best intellectual dishonesty. That is not the true position of the Federal Government at the time. And certainly, that was not our position during the peace talks.
Are there facts to support this position?
My autobiography contains the full discussions of all the talks. From London to Kampala, Niamey, Addis Ababa, and the last peace talks, which took place, I think in April or May in Monrovia. Let me also say this, Emperor Haile Selassie presided over all the joint meetings we had between the federal delegation, led by me and the Biafran delegation led by Prof Njoku, for all the five weeks. The meetings all centred on how to get relief materials to the Biafran side. There is also this issue which I must emphasise. There were reports and there were incidents of some of the aircraft carrying relief materials to the other side, also carrying arms. There were such incidents. We must be very frank and truthful to ourselves.
So, my autobiography devotes about 120 pages to nothing, but largely how relief materials would get to Biafra before the cessation of hostilities. Again, the main discussion between us was on the passage of relief materials to the other side. So, I deny completely that there was any Federal Government policy to starve our brothers in the rebel held area during the civil war. In fact, it was Ojukwu, who used hunger as a weapon of war because he denied any agreement on relief corridors. We proposed so many corridors – Lagos to Benin and Asba, across the Niger. That was rejected. Port-Harcourt, by river, to Oguta. It was also rejected. Fom Lagos, directly to the rebel. It was also rejected. Fernandopo to Port-Harcourt; rejected. We discussed different corridors. Air, water and land, they were all rejected. Ojukwu was more interested in Biafra. Having got the support of France in getting its surrogates – Ivory Coast ( now Cote D’Ivoire) and Gabon – to recognise Biafra, and with Kenneth Kaunda of Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) and Julius Nyerere of Tanzania recognising Biafra, Ojukwu was more interested in the permanent sovereignty of Biafra. So he used relief materials at a weapon of war.
How true is Prof Achebe’s description of Chief Awolowo as a selfish and ambitious politician, who saw the war as an opportunity to advance his agenda of capturing political power for the Yorubas
Well, as an ambitious politician, he was. As a man who wanted power, of course he did seek power and he acquired power in the Western Region. He was a powerful politician. For me, I was on the other side of the divide politically.
This is because like most young persons and students in London in the early 1960s, we were for a fairly meaningful federal system of government because the regions were too strong. And Chief Awolowo was an advocate of strong regional governments.
We were for the central government being stronger than the regional governments at that time at least, to be able to hold the regions together. Then, the Premiers were more important than the Prime Minister of Nigeria. Having said that, I agree that he (Chief Awolowo) was ambitious and he sought power. We all know that he built his political power, using the Western Region of Nigeria, largely Yoruba speaking, as his power base. We as young persons, and that is where I differ from him, looked at Nigeria as a single unit. We wanted people who will look at Nigeria and speak to people; seek power from all the people of Nigeria and not just one part of it. We wanted a Nigerian leader, not a regional leader. So, that is the much I can say about Chief Awolowo.
That he was seeking power for his Yoruba people, well leave that. I think that is rather cheap. That is because, at the end of the day, Chief Awolowo sought support from the minority groups in the North, notably in the Middle Belt and also in Borno area. He also sought and got support from the so called minority areas in the then Eastern Region, notably, what we now call the oil producing states.
Chief Awolowo built his power not only from the West, but also in the Rivers and Calabar part of Nigeria, and the Middle Belt and Borno. So, to say he wanted power for his own people alone is neither here nor there. Towards the end, he sought power to be the President of Nigeria and he failed. And as Ojukwu himself said, he was the best president Nigeria never had.
How will react to the author’s argument that the change of currency was meant to weaken the Igbos economically?
Again, that is very cheap propaganda. When the currency was changed, there were some reasons for it. Before the civil war and during the war, but largely during the war, Central Banks were looted and Nigerian currencies were looted. That itself call for a change of currency by any sensible government. Secondly, I was Gowon’s emissary to negotiate with President Gnassingbé Eyadéma of Togo, when a plane load of Nigerian currencies landed in Togo. Gowon sent me to negotiate the return of the currencies and the plane. The story is told in my autobiography. So, with Nigerian currencies flying around, any sensible government will change the currency.
The change of currency affected everybody. Everybody was given a certain period of time to exchange the old notes for the new notes. I think the aim of the government at that time was to try and stabilise the currency of the country because of the looting of the Central Banks. Remember the bank at Enugu was under the full control of Ojukwu. One or two other Central Banks outside the rebel held areas were also looted.
How credible is the claim that the banning of the importation of stock fish and used clothes was an anti-Igbo economic policy?
Are they the only one eating stock fish? Are the Igbos the only people that sell and wear second hand clothes? That is very irrelevant, although, in the context in which he wrote his book, it was all part of the attempt to liquidate the Ibo speaking Nigerians. So, outsiders, who do not know who eat stock fish or not , will have the impression that it is only the Ibo speaking who eat stock fish or wear used clothes.
How true is the allegation that in prosecuting the war, the state’s acted in a manner that could pass as genocide?
On the issue of genocide, I must confess that there was massacre of Nigerians who came from outside the Northern region after the Unification Decree of the late Aguiyi Ironsi on May 24, 1966, when he abolished the federal system and introduced the unitary system of government by Decree. There was riot all over the place and most unfortunately, many Ibo speaking and other non-Ibo speaking Nigerians were killed in the Northern part of the country. We must admit that fact. I condemn what happened in the North in May 1966. There was reprisal in some parts of the East. I condemn all the killings by both sides. But genocide during the war? No. I remember the incident during which a soldier, I think it was in the Third Div, under Col, later Brigadier General Benjamin Adekunle, killed innocent civilians, the soldier was shot dead on the order of the Federal Government. There was no genocide from my point of view and from my knowledge as a member of government at that time.
What about the children that were reportedly taken outside the rebel area?
This was clear propaganda of war. It was a weapon of war by Col Ojukwu to prolong the war and also to make Biafra a reality, a sovereign state. The title of Achebe’s book: “There was a country”, is wrong. There was no country. There was rebellion. As I said at the time, if Lagos declared secession out of Nigeria, I Femi Okunnu, will be on the federal side. There was no genocide. War involves killing on both sides. And both sides killed. I must emphasise that Gen Gowon had a booklet of instructions given to his field commanders to follow Geneva Convention.
How can the people grow in the face of these contradictions and mutual suspicion among the various ethnic groups?
We should all learn to be Nigerians. You don’t find a Chinese either inside or outside their country saying he comes from a section of the country. A Chinese is a Chinese anywhere. China has 1.5 billion people, Nigeria has only 150million. And that is why China is almost number two in the world in terms of economic development. Same goes for India. Nigerians should be proud to Nigerians. I do not have problem with the development of culture. These are part of the riches of the country. So, until Nigerians begin to think of Nigeria as a single political and economic unit, and act in that manner, Nigeria will never make it. We only much noise about being the biggest country in Africa, many countries which were behind Nigeria in Southeast Asia – South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia. In the 60s and 70s these countries were far behind Nigeria in economics terms, but now they well ahead of us. We rely only on oil. Palm oil and palm kernel industries are almost gone. Cocoa and groundnut are dead. So, we should make up our mind to return to where we were in term of production of cocoa, palm oil or palm kernel. Nigeria was number one and number three in the production of palm oil and palm kernel in the world. Malaysia, which borrowed palm oil seedling for experimenting in their country, is now exporting palm oil to Nigeria. It is Malaysian oil that we now consume in Nigeria. Back to the point I am making, ethnicity should be dead. We can develop our individual cultures and tradition, but they must not be brought into political arena. We should not allow ethnicity determine our political choice and decisions.
