 |
|
Before We Resurrect Biafra, The Facts, The Myth
When the Nigeria Civil War ended in 1970, the country's military government then led by General Yakubu Gowon proclaimed that there was no victor and no vanquished and began a process of rehabilitation aimed at reintegrating the largely Igbo population that made up the dissident Biafra into the Nigerian community. To Gowon's credit, despite losing the war to secede from Nigeria, no Igbo was brought to trial or executed for his role in the Biafra cause. The Igbo were not restricted to the Eastern parts of the country nor was their freedom curtailed in the aftermath but things had changed. The civil service and top government positions they abandoned in the flight for dear life during the 1966 pogrom had been taken over by members of other ethnic groups, mostly northerners and the Yoruba and these government positions would elude the Igbo for many years to come. The Igbo had been badly bruised and scarred by the defeat of Biafra and they have remained with that scar for more than 45 years since.
Now there is a renewed agitation for secession led by the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) and a splinter group named Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB). The resurgent agitation has become a leading subject of commentaries on Nigerian affairs. Generally, many of the protagonists and antagonists of Biafra have largely authored their commentaries from deeply seated emotions, sometimes with bile, but with little or no generally accepted facts in support. A good majority of the observed writers who anchor their work on the historical civil war, appears too young to be eye witness narrators of the event they write about. They place reliance on the oral and written accounts of others for their opinions but the down side of such reliance is that every written account of Biafra has been challenged and discountenanced by other writers, while reliance on oral but unverified accounts remains just a myth.
The original concept of Biafra was as a self-defense measure foisted on the East in reaction to the pogrom in Northern Nigeria following the Nzeogwu-led 1966 military coup which was largely seen as an Igbo/Eastern coup by the North. Even then, there is debate as to whether Ojukwu should have taken the extreme stance of secession rather than the more diplomatic avenue to achieve the protection of the Easterners given the immeasurable loss of lives and properties suffered by Easterners during the war. That debate may have more relevance to the currently unfolding saga of violence around the renewed agitation for Biafra as discretion is the better part of valor.
At the beginning of the Biafra secession bid in 1966, the entire Eastern Region of Nigeria comprising, present day Cross River, Bayelsa, Rivers, Abia, Imo, Ebonyi, Enugu, Anambra and parts of Delta states stood as one inviolable entity behind the Biafra declaration due to the mass killing of Easterners, not just the Igbos in Northern Nigeria. Subsequently, and as a result of war time politics and intrigues, some of the riverine and other communities had a change of heart and withdrew their support for the secession.
The oil producing communities of Nigeria as part of the secession bid lent a great economic weight to the viability of the new state of Biafra and its chances of economic survival, notwithstanding the small territorial enclave.
The Eastern Region of Nigeria suffered a lot of devastating destruction of lives and properties as a result of the war. Indeed, the Igbos sacrificed so much blood and lives that the refrain after the war was “never again”. With the return of Ojukwu from exile and his reabsorption into the main stream of Nigerian politics, the chapter of Biafra seemed closed.
Today, many of the eyewitnesses of the civil war see the resuscitation of the ghost of Biafra by the generation born after the war as unfounded. They argue that the simple fact that the new Biafra agitators have thrust themselves forward without a plebiscite as to whom they represent, casts a pall on the new agitation. They posit that there is no single state legislature in the Eastern part of Nigeria that has passed any resolution in support of the agitation; that there is no senator or federal representative that has sponsored any motion supporting the agitation at the National Assembly. And, there is no Governor of a state from the Eastern region that has supported the agitation. The lack of vital support from any elected official for this agitation is a strong indication that a plebiscite will not validate the new secession bid today.
Further, there are no objective reasons and facts advanced for the separatist move which cannot be channeled through the currently available political institutions and resources for resolution. While MASSOB seeks to assert a right to freedom of self-determination, plus freedom to civil disobedience, they have trumped and snubbed the current political institutions and elected officials, both within the states where they are based and enjoy support and at the federal level.
By forcefully shutting down markets against the wishes of many sympathetic and unsympathetic traders and blocking access roads to cities in the East, the agitators cannot claim the privilege of peaceful demonstration, especially, where such public demonstrations are without valid police permits. Under such circumstances, the government's position is easily that security agencies will be derelict to allow such civil disobedience to continue unabated. However, restraint is required on the part of the law enforcement agencies to avoid unnecessary loss of lives.
It is worthy of note also that people of all the riverine states of Cross River, Bayelsa, Rivers, and Delta are not in support of this current agitation for the state of Biafra. Indeed, these states appear to have a separate agitation of their own for Niger Delta autonomy, with exclusive rights to the oil wealth. As they go, so goes most of the oil wealth from the proposed state of Biafra.
It should also be pointed out that the remaining states from the old Eastern region, comprising Abia, Anambra, Enugu, Ebonyi, and Imo have no real unity and fraternity upon which to build a lasting statehood devoid of the same debilitating politics currently obtainable within Nigeria. That is, assuming that the small territorial land is not a negating factor against a successful secession. Besides, a lot of communities within this geographical area are decidedly not in support of the proposed Biafra.
Historically, Igbos have small egalitarian, enterprising and independent communities which feud when fused together. The Igbos are not monolithic. There was never a historically large state or dynasty comparable to Oduduwa or Uthman Dan Fodio empires. Aside very few communities, kingship is a relatively new development among the Igbos; Igbo enwe eze as it is said.
Barrister Ubani, a former president of the Nigeria Bar Association Lagos, aptly captured the unviable nature of such a proposed separatist state of Biafra in a statement he released to the media on November 18, 2015. According to Mr. Ubani, when Enugu state was carved out of the old Anambra state, they sent non-indigenes (people of Anambra, Imo and Abia States) packing from the state civil service. In September 2011, then governor of Abia state, Chief Orji, sent non-indigenes (people of Anambra, Enugu, Ebonyi and Imo States) packing from the state civil service. Where then is the unanimity for the formation of Biafra which will offer all Igbos repose from everything they claim to currently suffer in Nigeria? The proposed Biafra will be a microcosm of Nigeria, with all its ills and shortcomings.
The question still remains as to what exactly motivates the Biafra agitators since some of the serious ills in the present day Nigeria such as corruption and kidnapping are deeply rooted within the states seen as the natural region for Biafra. Igbo politicians are as corrupt as the Yorubas, Hausas, and other Nigerians. Igbo civil servants and policemen collect bribes as much as other Nigerians; Igbo businessmen are just as nefarious and Igbo government officials just as corrupt. Recently, IPOB accused the MASSOB leadership of personally benefiting from funds generated exclusively for the Biafra cause, leading to a fracture and the emergence of IPOB. If allegations of corruption has created this mistrust among the agitators how different from the rest of Nigeria could a possible Biafra be? This is not exactly UHURU!
Perhaps, MASSOB and IPOB agitators appear to be unwittingly willing tools of some mischief makers who are bent on breaking up the polity for their personal gains, but that is beside the point.
What is really responsible for the emergence of MASSOB, IPOB and the agitation? The answer to that is akin to questions such as, what is responsible for Boko Haram? What is responsible for the Niger Delta militancy? What is responsible for Odua' Peoples Congress, OPC boys ? What is responsible for the emergence of El-Zak-Zaky and Muslim Shi'ites in Kaduna? And, what is it that the numerous cults in Nigeria's universities, polytechnics and cities, currently wasting the lives of our youths want?
These are all symptoms of failed leadership and governance in Nigeria. They are symptoms of the rot plaguing the society. They result from the failure of social institutions, lack of solid ethos and ideals on which modern societies are built. They reflect the decay in values in community.
A nation, where almost all the constituting ethnicities feel that they are neglected and treated unfairly, is a failed state. Militancy is always a precursor to a failed state and portends the quality of political leadership. A class that is not interested in the fortunes or welfare of both the nation and her citizens but in their own private pockets; a class that enjoys playing the political divide and using their tribal politics for their own selfish gains; a class that grows fat on the public wealth while the nation grows poorer; a class that presides over the destruction of our social and educational institutions; a morally bankrupt generation of leaders. The Nigerian story of marginalization is now the cry of every ethnicity. It is only in Nigeria that people go into government to make money rather than see it as a service to community.
The solution to this decay appears to be two pronged – the current crusade against official corruption must continue ad infinitum and reversal back to federalism. Rather than seeking an exit from Nigeria as solution to the problems of the Igbos, MASSOB and IPOB should be mobilizing support for federalism and the adoption of the work of the National Conference. They should be mobilizing support for the anti-corruption crusade in their various states. The real solution and answer lies in the enormous and daunting task of building an inclusive, pluralistic society, and eradicating official corruption that is benefitting few individuals and the self-styled stake-holders. This is a collective task for this generation of Nigerians.
Also, a critical look indicates that Igbos may be their own worst enemies because they are heavily invested in Nigeria often t the detriment of their home states. Their desire for quick profit drives them to rather invest in places like Abuja and Lagos instead of building up their own local areas and states. How then can they disentangle from this without losing out again? Also, many Igbo contractors who win public work projects in Igboland always seem to end up doing shoddy and substandard work. They seem to prefer fleecing their fellow Igbo public than delivery of quality services, for the meaningful development of Igboland.
As it is, only the National Assembly acting with the State Assemblies have powers under our constitution to create new states or accede to the secession request of any constituting part and not the President. MASSOB and IPOB should therefore concentrate their strategy on how to successfully lobby the National Assembly within the confines of the law rather than its current ill-advised strategy. War has been tried in the late 1960s and many still remember the damaging consequences. Beating war drums again is not the solution to Igbo problem.