The Nation Newspaper

Tag: secession

  • Middle belt reject secession, vote for One Nigeria

    Middle belt reject secession, vote for One Nigeria

    Stakeholders in the middle belt, comprising Benue, Plateau, Kogi, Kwara, Niger, Nasarawa and Taraba State, have voted against secession. They accepted the indivisibility of Nigeria as a country, and dissociated themselves from any group which is clamouring or preaching balkanisation of the country.

    Their stand was contained in a communiqué by Chief John Mamman (Chairman) and Màiyaki Idris (Secretary) of the Middle Belt Group, after their meeting at Slim Top Suite Hotel Jos, Plateau State.

    The group also rejected the idea of returning to regionalism, saying as a people, they have resolved to control their political destiny and will resist any undue influence from outside.

  • Amosun flays secession

    Amosun flays secession

    Ogun State Governor Ibikunle Amosun has urged Nigerians to uphold and strengthen the nation’s unity to fulfil the dream of the country’s founding fathers.

    The governor spoke yesterday at the special thanksgiving service to commemorate Nigeria’s 57th Independence anniversary at the Cathedral of St. Peter at Ake in Abeokuta, the state capital.

    He noted that though the nation had been experiencing series of challenges, ranging from insecurity, economic downturn, corruption, among others, the people should still be united.

    Amosun said secession would be disastrous and regrettable, given the current realities.

    The governor, who was represented by his deputy, Mrs. Yetunde Onanuga, urged Nigerians to continue praying for the manifestation of the desired positive change that will help the nation to reclaim its lost glory.

    He assured the people that the Federal Government under the All Progressives Congress (APC) was committed to meeting their aspirations.

    The Bishop of Ijebu Diocese, Anglican Communion, Rev. Olusina Fape, said Nigerians should turn away from sins and pray to God to heal the country.

  • Ohanaeze blames Nigeria’s enemies for secession clamour

    Ohanaeze blames Nigeria’s enemies for secession clamour

    The Southeast socio-cultural body, Ohaneze Ndigbo, currently on a peace mission to the North, says the current clamour for self-government in the country, is the handiwork of the enemies of Nigeria.

    Such, enemies, according to Ohanaeze, are envious of Nigeria’s potentials.

    It therefore wants Nigerians to learn to live with one another.

    The President General of the body, Dr. John Nwodo, said in Gombe on Friday that Nigerians must learn to live in peace, irrespective of ethnic, religious or regional differences.

    Nwodo led Igbo leaders from the 19 Northern states including Abuja, on a courtesy call on Governor Ibrahim Dankwambo of Gombe State.

    He said that anyone who witnessed the civil war in the country would not want to see a recurrence of the incident.

    According to him, Ohaeneze conceived the idea to reach out to Northerners even before the decision of the 19 Northern governors to visit the South East.

    “They visited us and that we are now here shows we are on the same bed and dreaming the same dream,” he said.

    He assured non-Igbo resident in the Southeast of adequate protection, conveying the message of governors in the region to guarantee the safety of all non-Igbo.

    While stressing that “enough is enough”, he asked patriotic Nigerians not to take the laws into their hands.

    He appealed to Dankwambo to communicate the message of peace from Ohaeneze to the people of the state and the entire North- East.

    Responding, the governor assured them that Gombe State was home to all, and stressed that adequate measures had been taken to ensure the safety of lives and property.

    Represented by his deputy, Mr. Charles Iliya, the governor recounted an earlier meeting held with political, traditional and religious leaders across the state, where he stressed that the unity of the country was paramount.

    The Ohanaeze delegation also met with Igbo community in the state.

     

  • ‘IPOB’s agitation for secession misplaced priority’

    The University of Ilorin (UNILORIN)  of the Centre for Peace and Strategic Studies (CPSS) Director Dr. Mahfouz Adedimeji, yesterday said the agitation for secession by members of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) is a misplacement of priority.

    Dr Adedimeji spoke at thisn year’s United Nations (UN) International Day of Peace and a lecture in Ilorin, the Kwara State capital.

    He said secession was not a precursor to the Eldorado that some people were fantasising about.

    The university teacher said there is always need to work together and respect other people’s views, adding that there is also need to prioritise mutual respect and safety.

    He said: “There is an overarching message of the Peace Day that we need to internalise. The message is the need to work together as one people, regardless of our ethnic, religious, political or ideological differences. We are united by a single humanity and we are united by being Nigerians. The Almighty Allah, Who brought us together could not have committed an error, He is All-Perfect.

    “Therefore, the agitation for secession and the hullabaloo that it is generating are borne out of misplacement of priorities. Apart from secession not being a precursor to the Eldorado that some people are fantasising about, (if so, the war ravaged South Sudan would have been the happiest country in the world), the wrong methodology of animalising everyone who does not share the main protagonist’s views will achieve alienation as pro Biafra agitators are now realising.

    Dr. Adedimeji, who called on people to treat one another with dignity and not making people wallow in the mud, added that they should stop burning people’s mosques.

    He said: “Nigerians should all be one and each one of us should stand for other Nigerians. In other words, we should be all for one and one for all.”

    Governor Abdulfatah Ahmed said government could create policies and an enabling environment for its people only if it was not distracted by violence and the people were not hindered by fear.

    The governor cautioned against utterances or actions capable of threatening the existence, peace and unity of Nigeria.

    He urged youths should be included in peace building and conflict resolution.

  • Restructuring is not the same thing as secession; it is the continuation of bourgeois-consumption sharing of the ‘national cake’ and the kind of ‘unity’ it has hitherto normalized

    Restructuring is not the same thing as secession; it is the continuation of bourgeois-consumption sharing of the ‘national cake’ and the kind of ‘unity’ it has hitherto normalized

    [Being an open letter to Garba Shehu and Issa Aremu]

    Dear Mr. Garba Shehu and Comrade Issa Aremu: Greetings!

    Lest I be accused of unjustifiably lumping you together when nothing of obvious political and ideological significance connects you, Mr. Shehu, as Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, to you, Comrade Issa Aremu, the General Secretary of the National Union of Textile and Garment Workers of Nigeria (NUTGWN), let me quickly state why I have thought it necessary to address this open letter to both of you when I could easily and more properly have addressed it to either of you. There are two reasons for this. First, both of you, in my opinion, offered the most articulate and passionate endorsement of President Buhari’s speech of Monday, August 21, 2017. Secondly and more importantly surely, it is remarkable isn’t it, that a major labour leader sees eye to eye with the President’s media publicist, so much so that the views expressed by the two of you about the speech are almost completely identical?

    Of course, a cynical Nigerian would see this congruence between both of you on the subject in question as an expression of the probability that you, Comrade Issa, is an appendage of the Presidency’s long media reach. But personally, I know you well, Comrade. I know that you would never parlay your solid reputation within the labour movement and the Nigerian Left for an actual or symbolic mess of potage from the overflowing kitchen, speaking metaphorically, of the Presidency. In other words, the thought that the unrestrained endorsement that you, Comrade, gave to the President’s “unity-is-not-negotiable” speech might represent the thinking of a segment of the trade union leadership – this is the main reason why I chose to address this letter as much to you as to Mr. Shehu, if not indeed more.

    Going straightaway to the subject of this open letter, permit me to say that the most important thing that I wish to discuss herein is, for me, the astonishing fact that both of you, Mr. Shehu and Comrade Issa, are indifferent to the fact that your endorsement of the President’s unity-is-not-negotiable speech reflects and takes sides with the “Northern” position on restructuring as distinct from the “Southern” position on the matter. Can you have been so indifferent to such a perception or is it merely the case that you do not care one way or another whether both “Northerners” and “Southerners” would automatically see you as taking sides with the “North”? For make no mistake about it: it is a “Northern” position on the issue of restructuring to lump it together with secession, just as it is also a very “Northern” position to almost reflexively see a fundamental opposition between restructuring and the unity of the country when, in fact and in logic, there is no necessarily oppositional or contradictory relationship between them.

    On that note, I move to perhaps the central proposition that I wish to make and explore in this open letter to you. What is this proposition? It is simply this: far from being antithetical to national unity, in the realms of both policy and action, restructuring has been the single most important and effective guarantor of our country’s unity and corporate existence in the post-civil war period. Both of you are probably too young to have had the benefit of lived experience to substantiate this claim, but surely you do know from common knowledge of political developments in our country since the end of the Nigeria-Biafra war in 1970, that it was on the basis of serial and sustained restructuring that the three big regions of the North, the East and the West became the thirty-six states that we have today? This is so basic, so indisputable that one cannot but wonder why both of you, reflecting and taking sides with the current “Northern” position on the subject, now see restructuring as a threat, a destructive specter haunting our country’s unity and corporate existence.

    Because so much depends on it, permit me, Mr. Shehu and Comrade Issa, to repeat, in the form of a question, the essential point that I am making here: Why has restructuring become so unpalatable to the “North”, to the extent that every and any mention of the term evokes terrifying visions of disunity and even disintegration? And conversely, why is the “South” now so hellbent on restructuring to the extent that for the majority “Southerners”, the word, the term now connotes the ultimate panacea for virtually all of our country’s crippling problems and crises? Indeed, on this crucial observation, let us not mince words at all: for the “South”, restructuring is so desirable, so totalizing in its appeal that many “Southerners” do not care in the least that the “North” and its leaders see and hear secession, hate speech and/or national disintegration anytime that the term is mentioned. Why is this happening? How did it come about that the country became so divided, so seemingly irreconcilable over a term that hitherto had been seen as a pillar of the country’s unity?

    Mr. Shehu and Comrade Issa, I have two answers to this question that I am quite happy to share with you and the readers of this column. One answer is fairly simple and uncomplicated; the other is a bit more complex. As a matter of fact, the first answer is so simple and uncomplicated that it is nothing short of an embarrassment for me to have to point it out. For what it is worth, here it is: we seem, one way or another, to have forgotten that unity comes in many forms and takes many shapes; moreover, unity is slippery both as a term and as lived experience, so much so that it constantly and forever has to be redefined and reinvented. I suggest that it is due to the loss, the forgetting of this constitutive variability of unity as a term and as lived experience that the current, respective “Northern” and “Southern” understanding of the term can be so dissimilar, the “North” seeing unity as threatened by restructuring, the “South” seeing restructuring as the ultimate guarantor of unity. Based on this fact, I confess that I for one am unable to decide which is more outlandish, more fanciful, more confounding, the view of the “North” that unity is settled for all time and is therefore not negotiable and the view of the “South” that restructuring is the panacea for all our problems, especially our continuing crises of growth and development.

    With regard to the second, more complicated answer to the question of why the “North” and the “South” are so irreconcilably divided on unity and restructuring, I suggest that what we are witnessing is the fact that with the coming to power of Muhammadu Buhari as President and the APC as the new ruling political party at the center, all the lies, all the deceits and all the delusions of our political elites in all the ruling class political parties proffering themselves as the champions and standard bearers of our country’s unity and corporate existence have been exposed in a way that had hitherto had been impossible. There is both a personal and a systemic dimension to this historic unravelling of the promises of bourgeois-consumption unity and restructuring in our country that surfaced in the wake of the electoral victories of Buhari and the APC. It is helpful to deal first with the personal dimension.

    On the personal level, without descending into insult and calumny, I cannot but say with all the emphasis that I can muster that Buhari has turned out to be one of the most parochial, sectionalist and nepotistic rulers we have ever had in this country. This is a man who enjoyed – and probably still enjoys – respect and even sedulous followership all over the country, well beyond his own regional and local neck of the woods. But now, it is an understatement to say that his blatant and even arrogant sectionalism has caused a deep crisis of credibility since even his own wife and some of his closest, longtime supporters and allies have either publicly and openly criticized him on this issue or broken with him precisely because of the regional, ethnic and cultural narrowness of those with whom he has surrounded himself. Mr. Shehu and Comrade Issa, do you think Nigerians are not aware, keenly and militantly aware, of these contradictory aspects of Buhari’s otherwise messianic presidency? Unity is not only or merely a word, a constitutional provision; it is also an embodied and lived experience. Nothing shows the hollowness of the President’s invocation of the inviolability of Nigerian unity than the great, yawning chasm between what he says and what he communicates through his actions and deeds.

    The systemic dimension of the crisis of bourgeois-led restructuring and unity in our country is nowhere more evident than in the fact that when we put the words, “North” and “South” and/or “Northern” and “Southern” in brackets, this does not in any way hide the fact we are talking of politicians within the same ruling party, the APC, as well as politicians of all the ruling class political parties. Naturally, this ought to make us pause to ask why politicians of the same ruling party and the same larger ruling class can be so bitterly divided on restructuring and unity. Indeed, we must go further and ask: are they really that divided or is it rather the case that, as they have done so many times in the past, they will sooner or later come to some agreement, some accommodation of their bitterest differences on the basis of the sacrifice of the interests of the poor and the excluded of all the regions, states and ethno-nationalities of the country? Or is it the case that we are now at a completely unprecedented historical and political juncture in which restructuring might at last usher in a “unity” that will lay its foundations on the primacy of the interests of the workers and the poor of all the regions, geopolitical zones and ethnicities of the country?

    This question is not as abstract as it seems. As I did in last week’s column, I bring this discussion to a close on the question of – production. In popular parlance, the kind of restructuring and unity – or unity through restructuring – that we have so far seen has overwhelmingly been based on sharing of the national cake – loot; public office; institutional perquisites. This is what in the title of this piece I have termed the bourgeois-consumption model of unity through restructuring: more of the share of our oil revenues; more states with their gleaming capitals surrounded by undeveloped wastelands of rural hamlets; more airports while roads and highways throughout the country go back to the state of nature; more federal and state universities while education and, especially, higher learning, go the dogs; more local governments without any significant or even visible positive impact on the lives of the great majority of our peoples.

    The “North” and the Niger Delta, these are the two poorest geopolitical zones of the country. Is it any surprise that each one respectively stands resolutely for and against restructuring, without their differing stands making any dent whatsoever in the surfeit of hardship and suffering imposed on the masses of the ordinary citizens of each region? Mr. Shehu and Comrade Issa, perhaps the presidency of Buhari and the governance of the APC will bring this absurd, terrible contradiction to an end for these two particular zones and for the rest of the country?

    We await your answer to this question. More importantly, we await the response and the action of your principal, the president himself.

    Biodun Jeyifo

    bjeyifo@fas.harvard.edu

  • Frustration, government incompetence cause of agitations, Ex-Envoy

    Frustration, government incompetence cause of agitations, Ex-Envoy

    • As Centre calls for open, frank discussion over secession

    Former Nigerian Ambassador to Chad, Abdullahi Omaki has said frustration and incompetence of the Federal Government is responsible for agitations and continuous call for secession in the country.

    Omaki disclosed this during a briefing on policy monitoring dialogue on national unity, integration and restructuring, organised by the Savannah Centre for Diplomacy, Democracy and Development (SCDDD), yesterday in Abuja.

    He said some of those who called for restructuring were of diverse views, as the term restructuring could mean devolution of power from the government at the centre, creation of more states and local government or financial federalism.

    However, the former envoy who is the Executive Director of SCDDD called for urgent open and frank discussion in the interest of national cohesion and unity.

    “Disturbed by the heightened agitations in recent times, SCDDD finds it alarming and demanding of urgent deliberate actions in the form of dialogue. The centre is of the opinion that the recent wrangling in the polity is driven more by frustration at the perceived lack of effectiveness of governments, than by a serious desire by any part to secede.

    “One major source of disaffection has been the issue of restructuring, a concept that means different things to different people, as well as provokes different reactions. For some, it means devolution of power from the federal government to the state and local governments in the true interest of federalism; for others it means the creation of more political units such as states and local governments in some certain parts of the country; for other still, it means financial federalism in terms of more control over local resources,” Omaki said.

    Against this backdrop, he emphasised on constructive dialogue as a reliable solution to end the agitations.

    “This is part of our humble and modest contribution towards the national discourse and to find lasting solutions to the recurrent agitations for self-determination that have often put undue stress and strains on the cords of national unity with support from ford foundation,” he added.

    Omaki listed worries of the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and clearer understanding of the term restructuring as some of the issues the dialogue was designed to address.

    Earlier, SCDDD founder, Prof. Ibrahim Gambari said the need for dialogue by prominent leaders from the six-geopolitical zones became important considering the level of agitations, calls for secession and ethnic crisis ravaging the country.

    He said the Acting President, Prof. Yemi Osinbajo, former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth of Nations, Chief Emeka Anyaoku and other prominent dignitaries in the country will discuss issues regarding the nation’s unity and recurrent demands for restructuring.

    Other personalities listed for the two-day discussions scheduled for 13th and 14th July are former Vice-President, Alh. Atiku Abubakar, former Chief of Defence Staff, General Alani Akinriande (Rtd), former Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Chief Olu Falae, President General of the Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Chief John Nwodo etc.

    The former Under Secretary General of the United Nations noted that the gesture should be continuous rather than being suspended after initial discussions with prominent leaders from across the regions by the Acting President.

  • Understanding secession struggles

    Understanding secession struggles

    A crucial premise of the world political order is that it is normatively justified. Otherwise, it makes little sense to defend an unjust system with the might of the state and the international community. Secessionists challenge this premise.

    A system, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. For secessionists, what they see in the states whose legitimacy they challenge does not measure up to their standard of justice. Hence the grave decision to confront a vicious Leviathan even when doing so risks a certain danger of deadly civil war, and an uncertain outcome that includes ignoble defeat.

    Surely, in this, as in other spheres of activities, the advice to keep trying until you succeed at your chosen task is a sound one. One cannot justifiably blame a group that persists against all odds based on the perceived justice of its cause. The commitment of politically aware and morally concerned activists in pursuit of their dream of a just ordering of the world political order is worth paying attention to.

    Therefore, today, I choose to look at three such efforts out of a plethora of cases that have emerged in recent times. The focus of each group with its justification for its position and the reaction of its larger political community, a.k.a. the state, provides a powerful insight not only to the sociology of the different states, but also their normative credentials.

    Scotland has been an integral part of the United Kingdom since 1707 when the Act of the Union ratified the treaty of 1706. The treaty had unified the kingdoms of England and Scotland under one Kingdom of Great Britain. Before then, there had been cultural and blood ties. James VI of Scotland who was the great grandson of James IV, King of Scotland, and Margaret Tudor, daughter of the King of England, became the acceptable successor to Elizabeth I, Queen of England.  That was around 1603 and the prospect for a common crown and a common parliament was bright.

    A common crown did not occur because of ingrained cultural differences and resentment. This was what the treaty of 1706 accomplished. Or did it? Even before the recent resurgence of nationalistic sentiment in Scotland, the treaty and act of unification were not a shoe-in but for the dire financial situation in which Scotland found itself. Ever since, the Union has only alienated many Scots, fuelling the demand for independence, a demand which Brexit has only just intensified.

    What has been the reaction of Westminster? With gentle persuasion, a strategy of divide and rule, and a dose of concessions, including devolution, the secession movement has been managed. In the 2014 referendum, 55 per cent voted against independence, while 44 per cent voted in favour. The Scottish National Party has now demanded another referendum vote over the decision of the English people to exit the EU. Time will tell.

    Significantly, government response does not include arrests, detention, or jail time for the leaders of the movement for Scottish independence.

    An unusual secessionist movement out of California in the United States just disappeared without the United States government lifting a finger. California and Texas, two of the biggest states that couldn’t be more disparate in outlook and political leaning, have shared a common interest in moving for secession whenever they do not like the result of a presidential election. Between 2008 and 2016, it was Texas that wanted an exit. Since January until this week, it is California.

    Based on its assets in population and financial muscle as the sixth-largest economy in the world, California can undeniably prosper as a nation-state. This plus the resentment of a federal government that is completely under the control of a conservative ideology which negates everything that many Californians espouse have driven the Golden State to the edge. Interestingly, the state itself is ideologically divided between the north and the south and as soon as it succeeds, if it does, California Republic will confront a new reality of assuaging a minority within the new nation.

    We may ask: what has been the reaction of the United States government to the threat of secession by one of its states? Silence!

    This is understandable. There is a constitutional provision for dealing with such cases. The movement leaders know they must cross a threshold. They must secure requisite signatures to place the initiative on the ballot. To organise signatures, they must raise funds. More than six months after they floated the idea, the California secessionists had not raised up to one quarter of what they need to put the question on the ballot for 2018. Amidst this, there was the bad press about the link of one of the leaders of the movement with Russia where he teaches English! The initiative was expectedly called off this week.

    Back home, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) declared a new Republic of Biafra a couple of years ago. This was after the election of 2015, but it was not altogether a completely new movement. Years earlier, the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) had taken the nation by storm. Both movements boast of massive support from Ndigbo, especially the young generation, and both Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and Chief Ralph Uwazuruike became instant celebrities.

    The reason for the support that the two gentlemen receive from youths and adults alike is not far-fetched. Biafra war-experience shocked the conscience of many people around the world mainly because of the effective propaganda machine of the seceding region. The troubling pictures of malnourished children, the famished figures of the elderly, and the account of genocidal activities against the Igbo before the secession move were too gruesome for many.

    But hostilities had ceased for more than 40 years and normalcy had been restored. Yet, emotions still run high and a new generation of Igbo, including many who were not born at the time of hostilities, now lead the new movement.

    Alas, the last paragraph is only half-true! Hostilities only ceased on the battle field. For many Igbo, there is still a feeling of alienation from the larger society. Though, they have participated at the highest levels of governance, including the presidency, they have only served as Number 2 while the Number 1 position has still eluded them. They feel short-changed in the allocation of states per zone. And with an impressive record of educational achievements, they feel that their potentials have not been and cannot be fully realised in the Nigerian landscape with its contradictions.

    Furthermore, it is also the case that the movement attracts, not just a new generation, but also the old and well-established political and intellectual figures. Only recently, the prestigious Eastern Consultative Assembly elected Mazi Kanu as its new President. If that is not an endorsement of his position by the Igbo establishment, what can qualify as such? The governors of the Southeast and the business and professional class have also called for Kanu’s release.

    This raises the question: what was the reason for Kanu’s detention in the first place? Per government, he led a movement for secession and this is a crime against the Nigerian state. But for Kanu, the legitimacy of the state is the issue.

    A further question is raised: Can this crisis be effectively resolved through the legal system or through a thoughtful process, which takes account of the political context in which the crime is committed and addresses the fundamental issues it raises?

    That was why Great Britain tried to deal with the Scottish movement with devolution before the English ventured again into Brexit crisis. On the other hand, the California and Texas movements are largely ignored by the government because they have no oxygen to sustain them.

    It is instructive to note that the Eastern Consultative Assembly has restated one more time the grievances that occasioned the agitation for secession. The group identified the perceived injustice of “oppressive census figures”, “asphyxiation through state and local government creation, and “opposition of the Nigerian government to peaceful restructuring.

    The implication is that once these grievances are addressed, the agitation will cease. Can we give political solution a chance?

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

  • ‘I advised Ojukwu against secession’

    ‘I advised Ojukwu against secession’

    Renowned novelist Prof. Chinua Achebe recently stirred a controversy in his latest book, ‘There was a country’, where he castigated the war-time Federal Commissioner for Finance and Vice Chairman of the Federal Executive Council, the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, over the handling of the civil war. But in a previous interview with the foremost economist, the late Prof. Sam Aluko, he attributed the avoidable war and consequent loss of lives to the refusal of the former Military Governor of the defunct Eastern Region, the late Col. Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, to heed his advice against secession.

     

    How close were you to the late Chief Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu?

    I will say that I was very close to him till his death. Immediately, he became governor of the former Eastern Region, when I was a senior lecturer in Economics in the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, he called me the third day he became governor. He said he wanted to come and see me in my university. I never met him before. How can the military governor come and see me? I said no. I told him I would come and see him, instead. I told the person he sent that he should tell the governor that I was the one who should come and see him and not him coming to see me. That was on January 20, 1966. So, when I said I was going to see him, my wife said she would go with me. She said we didn’t know the man and therefore she wanted to be present at the meeting. She reasoned that we couldn’t predict a soldier who just came. When we got to the military governor’s house, Ojukwu said: ‘Madam, I know you would come because you thought that I will do something to your husband.’

    He said he had never met me before, but those in the military had been reading so much about me and they venerated me. According to him, that was why he wanted to see me. He said he wanted me to help him to run the government of the Eastern Region. ?We discussed and he asked what role I would like to play and I said I would remain in the university because I didn’t want to leave. I promised to do whatever I could do to help him. The first cabinet that he formed, we both sat down and looked at the names of those from the Eastern Region to be cabinet members. He did not know them because he was not living in the Eastern Region. He was outside, in Kaduna and in Lagos. He spoke Yoruba better than I. So, we were speaking in Yoruba most of the time. That’s how the relationship began and we became very close. It was through him that I knew Adekunle Fajuyi, the governor of the Western Region. We continued until after the counter-coup in July. I was very sad. They killed many Igbo. Many who were not killed had cuts in the head and other parts of the body. He called me and said what could he do? What was going on in his mind was to go to a place in Benue and sack a village there. He wanted to kill as many people as possible. I said no. I said as a Christian, Christianity doesn’t allow for vengeance. As a Christian, I said he should not do that.

    Was that when the killings in the North started?

    Yes. That was the period the pogrom started. I said he should get in touch with the Head of State, but he said no because it was wrong for Yakubu Gowon to be Head of State because there was Ogundipe, who was a Brigadier and the most senior military officer at the time. He said when the coup happened in January, the most senior officer became the Head of State. So, he argued that when the counter-coup happened, the most senior should also become the Head of State. But the northerners will not take that at that time. Ogundipe himself did not want it because he said there were few Yoruba in the army. He said he will just be there without support and they would kill him. So, they made him High Commissioner in London. When the pogrom continued and the people were coming to the East from the North, Ojukwu said he was afraid that the easterners coming back might attack those who are non-easterners in the East.

    He then made a statement on the radio that all those who were non-easterners should leave the East. At the time, there was rumour that Professor Babatunde Fafunwa was killed because he was from the West. But Fafunwa was in Benin Republic attending a conference. Ojukwu said the rumour was a sign of what was to happen. He said they would be attacking the northerners and the westerners and claim easterners did. So, he will ask everybody to go. I went to see him in Enugu and I said: “well, Your Excellency, I will have to go back to the West.” He said no, emphasising that when he talked of westerners, it did not apply to me because I was one of them. Non-easterners in the East were scared. Fafunwa and I were the most senior in the place. Fafunwa was not around and I said: “I will have to take them to the West to make sure that they were safe.” He said it was OK and that he will give me soldiers to make sure that all the students and staff were safe. He said when I got to Benin, I should hand them over to the governor in Benin to take them to the West and I should return to my job in Nsukka.

    What of your protection?

    He said I needed not worry because I was one of them. Really, I was being integrated in the East because, at that time, Obafemi Awolowo was in the Calabar prison and I was the only one allowed to see him. Ojukwu used to give me protection to go and see him. So, I was enjoying myself. When I got to Benin, I did not return to the East. I got the people to Ibadan and then called him to say: “Your Excellency, I am here and I am no longer coming back to the East.” He said: “Doctor, don’t call me Your Excellency, call me Emeka. You are older than I and I adore you. Just call me Emeka and I will call you Sam.” I was talking to him every night from Ibadan. When the problem was brewing, General Adeyinka Adebayo was then the governor of the Western Region. He called me and said he understood that the easterners were planning a counter-coup and I would have to go to Enugu to see Ojukwu. He said that he had been trying to get him without success. I said I had his secret telephone number and I gave it to General Adebayo. But Ojukwu did not pick the phone from anybody. So, Adebayo asked the late Professor B. A. Oyenuga and I to go and see him. So, we went to Enugu and I delivered the letter. He told Professor Oyenuga that if he had not come with me, he would not have discussed with anybody. The only person he trusted was Dr. Aluko. I was not a Professor at that time. When we finished in the evening, we went to our hotel. Ojukwu came to me in my hotel room and said: “Doctor, I want to talk to you confidentially.” And he said: “Our plan in the East is that we are no longer safe in Nigeria. We want to secede.”

    What date was this?

    That was January 1967. I said: “Emeka, I don’t think you should think of secession. I said it was the Igbo that were killed in the North and not all easterners.” I said “from my living in the East and going round the East, I know that the Igbo were not very popular in the Rivers area and the Calabar area. I told him that if he declared secession, he would be fighting two wars. I told him he would be fighting internal war against people with him, who didn’t want to be ruled by the Igbo and he would be fighting Nigeria who didn’t want him to succeed. I told him not I didn’t think he could win the war. I think that made a great impression on him. He said: “Doctor, your analysis is perfect.” He said, “after all, why should I secede? “He said: “All my father’s property are in Lagos. I was brought up in Lagos. I came to the East on posting as a military governor. I have discovered that ruling the Igbo is like ruling a pack of wild horses. They are very difficult to rule. I will rather want to be away from here to another place. It is very difficult to persuade the Igbo against their will.” I told him he didn’t have to persuade them against their will, just be loyal to them. I went back to Adebayo. We had a reconciliation meeting. Awolowo, Onyia and myself were sent to meet Ojukwu in Enugu. Ojukwu insisted that if I did not come, he would not receive them. So, we went together. We discussed.

    When was this?

    That was March 1967. Awolowo was very frank with him. He told him: “Look, governor, you cannot secede. You cannot go alone. Just as you fear the North, the West also fears the North. The soldiers in the North are occupying the West. So, we have the same common interest. But don’t let us secede. Let us do whatever we can do together to unite and confront the North so that we can have a settlement on how we want to run this country.” Awolowo said, if the East left the federation, the Yoruba would have to leave the federation. That’s what some misconstrued to say that Awolowo assured Ojukwu that if he seceded, the Yoruba would join. What he meant was that the thing that makes Igbo leave the federation would also make the Yoruba leave the federation, but that he didn’t want to leave the federation. According to Awolowo, we want to enjoy and rule this federation because nobody has the monopoly to rule this federation; so, let us be in constant touch; let us unite and don’t do anything rash. When we left, I went to Nsukka and Ojukwu called me and said I should come back. I went back to him that evening.

    Where was Awolowo?

    He was in Enugu, at the Hotel Presidential. But I went to see my friends in Nsukka.

    What of protection for you and Awolowo?

    I didn’t need protection in the East, but Awolowo was protected. He was just released from prison. So, he didn’t need much protection. Ojukwu came in the evening to my hotel room and said he did not want to be very frank with us because he didn’t know Awolowo and Onyia. But he knew me. He said what he wanted is to make Rivers, Benue and Niger the boundary between the North and the South. He wanted a confederacy of the country so that the South will be Southern Nigeria versus Northern Nigeria and if Northern Nigeria wanted to go away, let them go away. I said: “look, I don’t think we should do that. I don’t think it would work. I have told you that the West has not suffered the way the East has suffered. How your people are angry is not the way and manner our people are angry. So, if you declare unilateral secession, you won’t get the whole West to follow you.” He said I had said so before and would not do it. So, I came back to the West and reported to Gowon what we discussed in Enugu.

    You told Gowon all that Ojukwu told you confidentially?

    Yes. I told Ojukwu I would brief Gowon. He liked Gowon and the only thing he had against Gowon was that he ought not to be Head of State. He said it was usurpation. I said but Gowon was already Head of State. That is how I became an intermediary between Gowon and Ojukwu. Gowon told me that he had been trying to get Ojukwu but he would not take the telephone. I said he had three secret telephones. There was one in Enugu, one in Onitsha and one in Nnewi, which he gave to me. At that time, it was the ground phone that was available. I gave them to Gowon. On the night before he was to declare secession, Adebayo called me that despite the assurances by Ojukwu, he learnt that he was going to declare secession tomorrow. I said I spoke to him last night and he did not tell me that he was going to declare secession. So, I called him and said: “Emeka, I have just learnt from the Head of State that you want to declare secession tomorrow.” He said, yes, that the people met and said if he wanted to continue to be military governor, he should either declare secession or quit.

    He said that to quit meant death. I said, “but you are a leader and a leader is not supposed to follow? People are supposed to follow the leader. Try and dissuade them from declaration. Let us see if we can do a number of things.” Anyway, he declared secession. Much later he said, “Sam, I have declared. I am sorry. We will continue to talk.” I said: “Look, this declaration is only declaration. The war has not started. We can still talk. If you want confederation, we can still talk. I said Canada has a confederal system.” We ended at that. So I told Gowon that Ojukwu was willing to talk if he could have a place to talk. Gowon said if Ojukwu would come to Lagos. I said Ojukwu would not come to Lagos. He said what of Benin? I said Ojukwu would not come to Benin. I said he regarded those as part of the enemy territory. That was how we settled for Aburi, in Ghana.

    Who suggested Aburi?

    I suggested Aburi to Ojukwu. He was first thinking of East Africa, like Tanzania. I said it was too far. I told him that if he was away Gowon was away in this turbulent time, they could plan coup against Gowon in Nigeria and plan coup against him in Biafra. I told him he should go to a place where he can go in the morning and come back in the evening. That was how we settled for Aburi. He also thought of Liberia. But I said Liberia was a bit far. At the Aburi meeting, you know Ojukwu is highly educated; so he prepared very well. Gowon went there with the hope that he was going to discuss with an old friend soldier and agree, like the Yoruba way of settling disputes, that, nobody is guilty, let us go on as we are doing.

    He did not go with the Awolowos and Permanent Secretaries?

    No. He went with a few people. And so, Ojukwu outwitted them there and got all he wanted as a confederal system.

    Who went with him?

    He went with soldiers. He went with officers of the army. So, when they returned and published the agreement, Ojukwu was very happy. It was published by Nigeria. But top civil servants, like Allison Ayida and others said this was disintegration of Nigeria. They said there was nothing left for Ojukwu to sever within one day. It was less than a confederation. It was virtually creating two countries. That was how Gowon developed cold feet to implement the Aburi agreement.

    You did not go to Aburi?

    No. I didn’t. Immediately he came from Aburi, he called me and said: “The agreement was fantastic. When we implement it, you will have to come back to your job in Nsukka.” He called me from Port Harcourt because he was then in Port Harcourt. When the Aburi agreement could not be implemented, he said Biafra Republic is indissoluble. No power in Africa can dissolve it. But I was going almost every month to Enugu, Nnewi or Onitsha to see him. What worried me, as I told him, was that whenever I was going from Onitsha to Enugu or Onitsha to Nnewi, soldiers who are eastern soldiers would say: “Doctor, please tell Governor we don’t want to fight. We have suffered enough.

    We don’t want to fight.” So, I will always tell him: “Emeka, the people you say no power in Africa can stop, are not willing to fight. They are not with you 100 percent. This is what they tell me.” He said he knew but there was no going back and that he had secured the confidence of the French, British, the Americans and some African countries. I said: “Don’t rely on Western powers. They are talking to you now because you are controlling the oil. Immediately there is war and they take the oil from you, they will desert you. It is because the oil is in the East and you are military governor in the East. But with what I see, immediately those in Rivers and Cross Rivers desert you and they link with the Federal Government and the Federal Government take those places from you, Britain, America and France will leave you,” which is what they did.??What I like about Gowon was that throughout the period, he was always in touch with me and I was always in touch with him.

    But the soldiers were always coming to my house in Ife, saying that I was a saboteur and that I was linking with rebels and that I was the ambassador of Ojukwu in the West. They would come and search my house that I had arms and so on and so forth. They did that until Gowon told them not to worry me again. They didn’t know I was in touch with Gowon. Every night, I will call Ojukwu and he will call me even when he was in the bunker. I once asked where he was calling? He said he was calling from the bunker in Aba. I reminded him that he said he was in Enugu and he said Enugu meant hill and anywhere he was hill. When the war started and the Nigerian soldiers started getting upper hand, he still believed he could win.

    What was he saying when Nigeria had upper hand?

    He believed after some time, they would collapse because he was also winning some skirmishes. He killed some soldiers in Awka. He killed some in Asaba. So, he was winning some small, small wars too. But I was a bit against him that there was no way he could win. About the end of 1968, I called him and said, “look, Emeka, try to make approach when Dr. Azikiwe defected.”

    Why did Azikiwe leave him?

    Ojukwu did not like Azikiwe.

    Why?

    Two masters cannot be in a boat. Azikiwe was so dominant in Nigeria and he was living in the East and Ojukwu was the military governor of the East. So, obviously, he would be looking over his shoulder because of Azikiwe. He might think he was more important than him (Azikiwe) as the military governor. It’s under-standable. In fact, he told me once that he had a lot of people watching Azikiwe. Finally, Azikiwe defected and came back to Nigeria. I said; “Emeka, I told you there is no way you can win this war.” I said use Azikiwe as intermediary between Gowon and yourself and let us settle this matter. That was at the end of 1968. We were talking in Yoruba. We always talked in Yoruba. We continued talking like that until the eve of his departure to Ivory Coast. After sometimes, he believed there were a lot of saboteurs in the East, who were no longer willing to fight. The French, British, Americans and even the Russians did not support him.

     

    •The interview was first published in The Sun of February 8, 2012.

  • Secession threats mere noise, says Abdusalami

    Secession threats mere noise, says Abdusalami

    Former military Head of State, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, said the country will not break up despite the security challenges and agitations by various regions for self-determination. He described the calls for secession as mere noise.

    Speaking to reporters at the Government House, Makurdi, General Abdulsalami expressed hope that the country will overcome her present challenges. He noted that Nigerians have intermingled over a long period of time and lived with obvious developmental challenges which would make it difficult for any break up.

    According to him, “This is not the first time I am saying this, all the secession threats here and there with the security challenges are mere noise because we have deeply intermingled; wherever you go you see Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, Kanuris and others so, there is nothing that can break up this country because God has brought us together.”

    He added, “What everyone needs to do is support the federal government effort. If you are talking about security then, who are the miscreants and where do they live. They live among us, so we must play our part by reporting them to the security agencies.”

    He lauded the effort so far made by President Goodluck Jonathan in key sectors such as education, security and power and affirmed that these efforts will soon be made manifest and some of the problems solved.

    He called on the elite to support President Jonathan through quality advise and suggestions on how to keep Nigeria one because it is the responsibility of every Nigerian to contribute to the development of the nation.

    General Abdulsalami described Governor Gabriel Suswam’s contribution to nation building as unprecedented and expressed hope that with leaders like him, the country will be better.

    He said, “I have followed your activities as a young legislator and now as governor and what you have done to your state and country in general. We the elders are proud that the country may never lack those who shall lead the people politically.”

    Governor Suswam, on his part, described General Abdulsalami as the greatest Nigerian who had an opportunity to hold on to power for a long time but organised an election in nine months.

     

  • No to secession, says Ekweremadu

    No to secession, says Ekweremadu

    Deputy Senate President Ike Ekweremadu, yesterday urged anyone planning a secession to have a re-think, saying that it amounts to selfishness.

    Speaking at the 2nd Zik Annual Lecture series in Awka, Ekweremadu said it was a negation of the ideals of the founding fathers of the country for anyone to think of secession.

    He said Nigeria is better off as one country, saying that the founding fathers of Nigeria, especially Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, stood strongly against secession.

    The senator said the founding fathers knew that the country would be a better nation if all the regions stood as one country.

    “I personally believe that if we are united, we will be stronger and enjoy the benefits of the population and size of our country.

    “We are better when we are united than going our separate ways, and this was exactly what Azikiwe preached and lived for all his life.

    “And I think those of us, the younger generation and those coming after us, need to follow that path,” he prayed.

    Ekweremadu, who was the guest lecturer at the event organised by the Anambra State council of the NUJ, extolled the leadership qualities exhibited by the first president of Nigeria.

    Pointing out that he was totally a detribalised Nigerian, Ekweremadu said the late Dr. Azikiwe, worked for the common good and unity of Nigeria.

    “Zik indeed showed the light so that men could find their way, as many believed that his spirit bound the nation and provided the basis for continued unity.

    “Zik was always quick to sacrifice his personal interest as a politician, so long as it will advance the cause of the Nigerian project,” he added.

    The Chairman of the council, Mrs Tochukwu Omelu, urged Nigerians to keep the faith and tenets of the Great Zik of Africa and thanked the deputy Senate president for honouring the invitation.