Reconsidering Biafra

Topics:

• Reconsidering Biafra
• The Biafran in all Nigerians

_______________________________

Reconsidering Biafra

Written by Ayo Sogunro - The Punch, Nigeria.

Sogunro is the Senior Adviser at the Initiative for Equal Rights

Opinions are not lacking when it comes to the issue of Biafra and the Nigerian Civil War. There are fictional and non-fictional books themed around it. Personal stories have been passed down. Articles written and papers presented. The Civil War has inspired poetry, produced movies, and it has led to even more disputes.

What seems lacking, however, are agreed facts. Despite the abundance of literature on Biafra, the issue is still as divisive in 2016 Nigeria, as it was in 1967.Yes, we know who shot whom and when. But we are yet to simplify these accounts into a logical narrative of cause and effect without expressing justification or blame.

This is, principally, because political decisions in this country have always been tied to the perspectives and personality of the Ogas at the top-and rarely to institutions or systems-and so it is very difficult to reach objective facts about the Civil War (or any other political issue) without seeming to pass value judgments-positive or negative-on the actors involved, some of whom still shape aspects of Nigeria's politics today.

Consequently, it has been safer for successive federal and state governments to adopt a deliberate or subconscious policy of ignoring the causes and effects of the Civil War in official administration. The Civil War is rarely referenced and almost never discussed by government. It is treated as like a nightmare whose vestigial memory is best ignored in view of the sunny day ahead.

The adverse effect of this attitude is that some fifty years later, there is still collective ignorance on the facts of the war.

It is, therefore, not surprising that, to a fair number of my Yoruba acquaintances, the Civil War was a bad thing, but no more socio-politically significant than a violent student protest in the '70s. To other non-Igbo Nigerians, generally, Biafra was mainly a nuisance affair that, like Boko Haram today, threatened the sovereignty of Nigeria and was justifiably dealt with by the Federal Government. Whereas, to a number of my Igbo acquaintances, the Civil War was simply the African version of the Holocaust.

These are all perceptions promoted by a wealth of opinions and a dearth of facts. None of these perceptions is absolutely correct, and none is absolutely false. Worse, because the direct consequences of the Civil War have been overtaken by events that have now become historical in their own right, the need for re-examination is undervalued. More importantly, since the days of the Civil War, all sections of the country have been jointly involved-in varying degrees-in a never-ending stream of almost equally lamentable economic and political misfortunes.

And so, a number of non-Igbo Nigerians are baffled by the current pro-Biafra agitations. They do not see any socio-economic justifications for a renewed agitation. Afterall, is Abeokuta any better developed than Aba? Has Awka been more marginalised by the Federal Government than Birnin-Kebbi? Are Igbo (and the miscellany of ethnicities of the South-East and South-South erroneously identified with the Igbo) generally poorer than the Hausa?

Nigerians measure individual success by material progress, and when they see the containers in Apapa Port, the shops in Alaba, the shareholdings of banks and high finance, they are satisfied that the Igbo have had their fair share of the national cake, and any purported underdevelopment in "Biafra" is the fault of the Igbo elite.

Nevertheless, the Biafran discontent as expressed today isn't about building roads and bridges-at least, not literally-nor about access to business or finance, but about Nigeria steadfastly dismissing the humanitarian injustices done to the Igbo (and their neighbouring ethnicities) from the pre-War pogrom to the post-Civil War nonchalance. Biafra agitators want the Nigerian government to sit-up, and agree that: Yes, there was a country and everyone involved bungled it very stupidly. This may look like a little thing to ask, but the Nigerian government is notorious for not apologising.

This point may be difficult to grasp for the non-Igbo Nigerian, but it is a hurt and anger that is real to many people-and directed at the current concept of the Nigerian nation. They were hurt by Nigeria and nobody cared afterwards.This hurt, and its accompanying anger, is passed down with every generation of Nigerian Igbo. The descendants of the Biafrans-no matter how prosperous they seem now-are still rankled.

Yet, as an older acquaintance recently reminded me, others were hurt too. Significant individuals (like Wole Soyinka) were imprisoned by the Gowon administration. A power-high and paranoid Ojukwu ordered the execution of Emmanuel Ifeajuna (the first African international gold medallist), Victor Banjo, Phillip Alale and Sam Agbam in unclear circumstances. Ethnicities like the Efik, the Qua in Calabar were allegedly massacred by Ojukwu's soldiers because he suspected they were saboteurs to the Biafra cause. There were also the Benin people and others who suffered loss of life or property simply for being ethnic minorities in a war involving major ethnicities.

The argument for reconsidering Biafra is not about justifying the reckless, and often criminal, decisions of the Nigerian and Biafran leaders, but it is about placing a value on Nigerian lives-whether "Biafran Nigerian" or "Nigerian Nigerian."

Ojukwu may have been pardoned by President Shagari, but when will the people pardon the actions of Gowon, Obasanjo, Murtala, and other actors?

Still, it is no wonder that a lot of people want to forget those days in a hurry. But the dead refuse to stay dead. And there are people like Nnamdi Kanu willing to profit from their ghosts.

We should not conflate arguments about reconsidering Biafra with the antics of folks like Kanu. These ones are hypocritical demagogues, playing on the sentiments of their audience for personal advancement. Yet, the sentiments they profit from are serious socio-psychological ones that a concerned government should create space to address. The rapidness with which Kanu built an audience, alone, is weighty enough to make a concerned government pause.

Yes, some people are merely annoyed that these issues have resurfaced under President Buhari's administration and consider it to be a deliberate attempt to "make the country ungovernable" for the current President. Yes, I agree that Biafran sentiments were subdued under the former administration and, maybe, a misguided sense of ethnocentrism has resurfaced it. But, inconvenient timing is not enough justification to dismiss a social issue.

Human life is sacred, and Biafra requires some reconsideration-some national remembrance, some educational policy or official catharsis-from us, today's citizens of the surviving entity Nigeria. Biafra requires our reconsideration of the administrative indecisions, malice, ignorance, vengeance, pride and foolishness on all sides that aggregated into the Civil War.

Reconsidering Biafra is not just for the protesters in Port Harcourt or the people broadcasting hate-speech onRadio Biafra. It is for the appreciation of the everyday Igbo women and men, as well as the other South-East and South-South ethnicities, for the surviving families of the victims of the Civil War, for all of them who still contribute to the economic and social success of Nigeria in different ways.

We keep getting upset that the Nigerian government is generally careless about the deaths of innocent civilians: the killings in Southern Kaduna, the ethnic clashes in the Middle-Belt, the victims of miscellaneous police murders, the Immigration recruitment stampede, Boko Haram victims, aviation crashes, and so on. But this official nonchalance was encouraged when we, the people, sanctioned the murders of the country's first leaders, the ethnic "cleansing" in the North, and then-till date-we allowed the deaths of over two million Nigerians to be swept aside as collateral damage.

We have to start taking our right to life seriously. We have to recognise that this nonchalance to civilian death is a problem. And then, we may be healed from the burdensome memories of the Civil War.

I have been reliably informed that there are records of the events that shaped the Civil War in what is now the Office of the Secretary-General of the Federation, as well as the E "Special Branch" Department of the Nigerian Police-now known as the SSS. Hopefully, one day, the government in Abuja-as part of a healing process-will release enough of the letters, executive orders and other documents that decided the fate of millions and thus enable us to accurately document our history, and reach an objective and settled understanding of the guided and misguided events of 1966-1970.

But, for now, Abuja is unbothered about Biafra. Abuja is never bothered by anything. If something gets bothersome, Abuja simply sends in the Army.

That is Abuja's M.O.

------------------------------------------------------

The Biafran in all Nigerians
Written by Lekan Sote - The Punch, Nigeria.

Lekan Sote

After considering the complaints of the Publicity Secretary of the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People, Fegalo Nsuke, you'll agree that Biafra could stand as a metaphor for any tribe marginalised in Nigeria: "In a supposed federation of 36 states, the Ogoni do not have a state of their own. (And) the right to self-determination, enjoyed by the majority ethnic groups, is denied the Ogoni."

The Basque of Spain, Moro in the Philippines, Uighurs in China, French Quebecois of Canada, and Saharawi Arabs of Morocco all want out of their countries because of marginalisation, the same way Ukraine's Crimean want to join their kith in Russia. But as the Negro Spiritual jibes, "Everybody talkin' 'bout heav'nain't goin' there," the Scottish separatists lost out in a referendum.

Though cynical John Grimond taunts, "Both fugitives and stayers would do well to know that (countries are transitory as history shows), and pay less attention to their national flags and folderols," consider the frustrations of two of Nigeria's founding fathers.

Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa laments: "Since 1914, the British has been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but the Nigerian people are intrinsically different in their background... religious beliefs and customs and do not themselves show any signs of willingness to unite." He adds: "Nigerian unity is only a British invention (that) existed as one country only on paper."

Western Region Premier, Obafemi Awolowo, avers: "Nigeria is not a nation; it is a mere geographical expression. There are no 'Nigerians' in the same sense as there are English or Welsh or French. The word 'Nigeria' is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria from those who do not."

While some want to "pieces" Nigeria, to borrow a street slang, others want to keep Nigeria one. Johnson Anumudu, an Igbo lawyer, queries Ray Ekpu: "Assuming the Igbo are marginalised in Nigeria, are the Yoruba, Ibibio, Rivers, Cross River, Akwa Ibom states not marginalised, or believe so? Why have you not championed them to ask for a separate nation? Why do you support and goad (the) Igbo to leave Nigeria?"

A former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, under the Ibrahim Babangida regime, Gen. Domkat Bali, from the northern minority Tarok, also prefers a united Nigeria. He notes: "If the North secures independence from the rest of the country, the Hausa/Fulani will be so dominant that they will lord it over us... A bigger Nigeria will check such excesses… (and) the freer my tribe and myself (sic) will be."

The North was the first to raise the issue of marginalisation, and insisted that the deadline for Anthony Enahoro's 1953 motion for Nigeria's independence from the British be modified to "when practicable," instead of the 1956 that Northern Region Premier, Ahmadu Bello, thought was an "invitation to commit suicide."

Northern leaders thought that the better educated Southerners had an advantage. They demanded a separate country unless they got half of the seats in the Federal Parliament and commensurate quota of enlistment into the military's officer corps. Premier Bello's "Northernisation" programme chose an expatriate over a southerner for a vacant position in the Northern civil service, if no northerner was available.

After the January 15, 1966 coup, perceived to be Igbo-led, had eliminated visible Northern and Western political and military leaders - Balewa, Bello, Ladoke Akintola, Festus Okotie-Eboh, Brigs. Samuel Ademulegun and Zakariya Maimalari, Col. Ralph Shodeinde, and Lt. Col. Yakubu Pam -and inadvertently placed Nigeria's government and military in the hands of Igbo officers, northern majors, subalterns, and Non- Commissioned Officers staged a murderous mutiny.

With the separatist 'araba' slogan, they wanted all Nigerians to return to their places of origin, so that the North could secede. They feared a reprisal after they had massacred many Igbo military officers and civilians, including the Head of State, Maj. Gen. Johnson Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi, and the Yoruba military Governor of Western Region, Col. Adekunle Fajuyi.

American Ambassador, Elbert Mathews, and the British High Commissioner, Sir Francis Cumming-Bruce, categorically stated that their countries wouldn't back a secessionist North. After pragmatic Northern civil servants explained that a seceding North would be landlocked, and lose economic benefits from the South, the mutineers accepted one Nigeria only if a Northerner, Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon, was Head of State.

The North certainly used the power for utmost political, economic, and military advantage. Except for the accident of history that threw up Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo, no southerner could have expected to be Nigeria's military Head of State. And of the 15 Nigerian Chiefs of Army Staff, starting from Gowon in 1966, till 1999, only two, Maj. Gen. David Ejoor and Lt. Gen. Alani Akinrinade, were Southerners.

After the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, believed to have been won by Bashorun M.K.O. Abiola, his Yoruba kinsmen engaged the state, represented by Head of State, Gen. Sani Abacha, and the military, in a grim battle of wits, using the National Democratic Coalition, and the militia, Oodua Peoples Congress with its mystical myth.

A realistic Northern establishment conceded the Presidency to a civilianised Obasanjo, who was not acceptable to his southern Yoruba kinsmen. Later, the restive Niger Delta region also got one of their own as Nigeria's President. Now, if you were Igbo, and saw that the Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba, and Ijaw got a listening ear after throwing a tantrum, wouldn't you act the same?

That explains the skirmishes of Ralph Uwazurike's Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra, and Nnamdi Kanu's Indigenous People of Biafra, and his vehicle, Radio Biafra. It is even more pertinent when the North that had conceded power became antsy for power, even before Obasanjo completed his first term. They finally got it back in 2015!

But it is the ordinary man that gets marginalised the most. As Nsuke complains, "The revenue generated from Ogoni is more than those of 20 states in Nigeria, yet the Ogoni, a distinctive people with unique language and culture are not allowed to determine their future in their own state. Ogoni is not cared for, denied everything enjoyed by the majority ethnic groups in Nigeria, and subjected to the most inhuman conditions that assure them of no future."

If the Igbo, who partnered the Hausa/Fulani in the Federal Governments of the First and Second Republics, and were prominent in the 16 years of the Peoples Democratic Party rule of the Fourth Republic, complain about marginalisation, it will appear that the John Doe on Any Street, Any Town in Igbo Country, got nary a share in the booty that was lapped up by the elite.

The Igbo should be wary of former old Anambra State Governor, Jim Nwobodo, for defecting to the ruling All Progressives Congress, after allegedly benefiting from the Dasuki purse of royalty. His words, "I want our people to be reintegrated and have our share of the Federal Government resources," are self-serving altruism.

Though Obasanjo thinks the agitation for Biafra is a means of making money, the Nigerian state must ask, as Prof Wole Soyinka's counsels, "What can we do to make them feel that they belong, and not alienated?"A good way to start is to free Nnamdi Kanu, complete the Second Niger Bridge, the East-West Road, lay the East-West Railway line, prepare the way for an Igbo President, and let states exploit their resources.