Adekunle Fajuyi: They Want Us To Forget

By Yinka Odumakin

The ancient city of Ibadan comes alive on Friday July 29, 2016 as dignitaries from all walks of life converge to remember that gallant, brave and outstanding soldier, Col Adekunle Fajuyi, who was murdered 50 years ago by Northern military officers who massed on the capital of the Western Region to take out then Head of State, Major General Johnson Aguiyi- Ironsi.

*Col Adekunle Fajuyi

The International Conference at the University of Ibadan is the place to be as prolific writer and teacher, Prof Niyi Osundare, speaks on “Fajuyi and the Politics of Remembrance”. Fiery preacher, Pastor Tunde Bakare and Prof Wale Adebanwi will spice his thoughts.

I spoke with a 27-year-old a few weeks back and I was shocked he had no idea who Fajuyi was. And it quickly dawned on me that those who stopped the teaching of History in our schools have succeeded in wiping off the   memory   card of our pertinent stories. They want us to be blank but we must keep telling our stories. Adekunle Fajuyi did not commit any crime than the fact that he was playing host to Ironsi on July 29,1966 when Northern officers who staged a revenge coup following the Kaduna Nzeogwu-led coup of January 15,1966 struck.

Disgruntled Northern officers led by Murtala Mohammed, TY Danjuma, Martin Adamu and others spearheaded a rebellion within the army after the event of January. On one occasion, Murtala called Ironsi a “fool” in the presence of other officers and threatened to avenge the death of his Northern officer colleagues. His position as the Inspector of Signals became quite veritable for the planning of the revenge coup nicknamed “Operation Araba” (Araba is Hausa word for let’s divide it). Murtala and his Northern colleagues had totally lost confidence in the Nigerian federation and their plan was to break Northern region from Nigeria.

Their politicians had earlier pulled out of the Federal Parliament in 1953 after the crisis that followed their rejection of Enahoro’s motion that Nigeria should become independent in 1956.They produced an eight-point demand which effectively wanted a confederal Nigeria as a precondition to return. As their coup began on July 29, 1966, it was Murtala who coordinated the take-over of  the International Airport in Lagos, an edifice to be named after him 10 years later. When he and his troops arrived the airport, they hijacked planes to ferry their families back to the North as a prelude to the exit of the region from Nigeria.

 An Igbo officer (Captain Okoye) was captured by them and tied to an iron cross and beaten to death. In Military units across Lagos, Kaduna and Ibadan, Northern troops went gaga and murdered their Igbo colleagues in gruesome manner, eliminating hundreds of them. The arrowhead of the whole operation was Murtala who had close links with NPC as his Uncle Inuwa Wada was the Defence Minister. When Danjuma and co arrived Ibadan they made for the Government House where there was a detachment of 106 Artillery commanded by William Walbe from Plateau State on guard. It later came to light that Walbe was part of the conspiracy. He later became ADC to Gowon. By some act of naivety Fajuyi’s ADC was one Lt Adamu, while Ironsi had Lt Sani Bello.

General Aguiyi-Ironsi: 50 Years After…

By Uche Ezechukwu

Next Friday, July 29th, will mark the golden jubilee milestone in Nigeria’s bloody history. That was the day in 1966, when Nigeria’s first military head of state, Major General Johnson Thomas Ummunnakwe Aguiyi-Ironsi, was abducted and killed by officers led by the then Majors Theophilus Danjuma and Murtala Muhammed, in what was known as the counter to the first ever military coup in the country that had taken place on January 15th of the same year.

*Gen Ironsi 

During the January 15 coup, top political leaders, predominantly from the Northern and the Western parts of the country were slain by the young ambitious military officers. Incidentally, apart from Colonel Arthur Unegbe, who was the quartermaster-general of the army, no other person from the East was killed in a putsch that severed off the top echelon of the political and military leadership from the North. In that coup, both the powerful premier of the North, Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sarduana of Sokoto, who was the leader of the ruling NPC was slain. So also was Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, the prime minister of Nigeria. Chief Samuel Ladoke Akintola, the premier of Western Nigeria and the ally of the NPC was also slain; so was Sir Festus Okotie Eboh, the minister of finance. Topmost Northern military officer Brigadier Maimalari was also killed. 

Incidentally, no politician of Eastern Region origin was killed. The powerful Dr Michael Okpara, the premier of Eastern Nigeria and Chief Dennis Osadebey who was the NCNC premier of Mid-West region, and an Igbo from Asaba, were not killed. Of course, President Nnamdi Azikiwe, who was out of the country at the time, on a medical tour, was also not touched. Even though it would appear as a convenient after-thought explanation to say that the fact that all those Igbo people were spared was not quite planned but was an error of fate.

For one thing, the soldiers sent to Ikoyi to arrest and kill the chief of army staff, Aguiyi-Ironsi, could not meet him at home as he had gone to a party aboard a naval ship at the Marina, Lagos, and had learnt of the on-going coup there. From there, he had found his way to Obalende and Ikeja, where he organised some loyal troops to foil the coup in Lagos. It was also Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, the commander of the Fifth Battalion at Kano that foiled the coup in the North.

Yet, how do you explain to the sorrowing Northerners that the coup, whose victims were unfortunately very lopsided at the expense of the North, was not a plot by the Igbo officers in the military? After all, on the list of the coup plotters was mostly Igbo, even as its two leaders, Majors Emmanuel ifeajuna and Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, as well as the other majors and officers were majorly Igbo. It hardly mattered that officers from all over the country including Major Ademoyega, Oyewole, Banjo, etc, were among the ring leaders of the coup. Neither, did it matter at those testy times that the coup plotters had planned to go to Calabar Prison, release Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who was serving a life–term for treason, and make him the prime minister. It also did not matter that Nzeogwu whose mother was Tiv and who was very angry over the military campaigns in Tivland in 1965, was only Igbo by name.

Nigeria’s Unity Is Negotiable, Mr. President

By Godwin Etakibuebu

A few days ago, President Muhammadu Buhari was quoted as telling a group of agitators from the Niger Delta region of the country that “Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable”. He went further by pulling from a former Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, most popular quote while the Nigeria/Biafra war lasted to buttress his point. That quote said: “to keep Nigeria one is a task that must be done”. 

I want to convince myself that the President meant this “clarion” call of “non-negotiable of the Nigerian nation’s unity” for the attention of all militant groups or agitators in the country. This is necessary because what is good for the goose of the Niger Delta geo-political region of Nigeria is even better for other and all geo-political zones of the country. Of course, this slogan of “Nigeria’s Unity not negotiable” is not new; it is an age-long and over-used phrase by most political leaders in Nigeria. Proof at hand is that this slogan has failed the test of time.

It is time for us therefore to go to the other side of the current bargain of “non-negotiable” in finding solution to the peculiar and perilous challenge that may likely put Nigeria asunder sooner than expected by exploring the benefits of “negotiating the unity” of this geographical enterprise called Nigeria. First and foremost, there was no country by the name Nigeria until 1914 when the amalgamation took place under the watchful eyes of Lord Lugard. He happily adopted the name ‘Nigeria’, a loudly pronounced thought of that British journalist, Dame Flora Louise Shaw [1852 – 1929], who later became Lady Lugard – the adoption itself was negotiated.

 In a well-researched lecture given very recently [2013] by one seasoned and old British Scholar in the Nigerian House, London, under the chairmanship of Dalhatu Sarki Tafida, then Nigerian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, the revelation on the reason for the 1914 amalgamation by the British Empire was laid on the table. I was there at the lecture just by co-incidence of events. The two separate protectorates of both south and north coming together in 1914 was “based on the economic consideration of running the protectorate of the north which could not pay its bill”, according to the scholar/researcher, adding that “while the south protectorate was economically self-sufficient, the north protectorate was not”. It is in the face of this reality that the decision was taken by the Home Office to fuse both north and south protectorates together “so that the ‘unified’ country would be self-sufficient economically.

We, the people of this “area of the Niger”, as opined by Lady Lugard, were “negotiated” into a nebulously packaged unity by powers and influences out-side, even the continent of Africa, purely for the economic exigency of the British. I want to submit therefore, that a clarion call for the survival of this fraudulent unity that is operational in Nigeria presently should be negotiation-based, by the Nigerian people. Any opposition to this is begging for rapturous disaster. Let us pull from one major historical event of the past to be surer of the most likely profitable route, in enduring national survival, which we need to follow in this matter. 

Cattle Herdsmen As The New Boko Haram?

By Reuben Abati 
“No matter how far the town, there is another beyond it” – Fulani Proverb.

There has been so much emotionalism developing around the subject of the recent clashes between nomadic pastoralists and farmers, and the seeming emergence of the former as the new Boko Haram, forbidding not Western education this time, but the right of other Nigerians to live in peace and dignity, and to have control over their own geographical territory. From Benue, to the Plateau, Nasarawa, to the South West, the Delta, and the Eastern parts of the country, there have been very disturbing reports of nomadic pastoralists killing at will, raping women, and sacking communities, and escaping with their impunity, unchecked, as the security agencies either look the other way or prove incapable of enforcing the law.  The outrage South of the Sahel is understandable. It is argued, rightly or wrongly, that the nomadic pastoralist has been overtaken by a certain sense of unbridled arrogance arising from that notorious na-my-brother-dey-power mentality and the assumption that “the Fulani cattle” must drink water, by all means, from the Atlantic Ocean.

It is this emotional ethnicization of the crisis that should serve as a wake-up call for the authorities, and compel the relevant agencies to treat this as a national emergency deserving of pro-active measures and responses. It is not enough to issue a non-committal press statement or make righteous noises and assume that the problem will resolve itself. Farmer-pastoralist conflict poses a threat to national security. It is linked to a number of complex factors, including power, history, citizenship rights and access to land. Femi Fani-Kayode in a recent piece has warned about Nigeria being “on the road to Kigali”, thus referring to the genocide that hobbled Rwanda in the 90s as the Hutus and the Tutsis drew the sword against each other. Fani-Kayode needs not travel all the way to Rwanda. Ethnic hate has done so much damage in Nigeria already; all we need is to learn from history and avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

Ethnic hate, serving as sub-text to the January 1966 and July 1966 coups, for example, set the stage for the civil war of 1967 -70. The root of Igbo-Hausa/Fulani acrimony can be traced back to that season when Igbos were slaughtered in the North, the Hausa/Fulani were slaughtered in the East and Nigeria found itself in the grip of a “To Thy Tents, O Israel” chorus. Ethnic hate also led to the Tiv riots, crisis in the Middle Belt since then, and the perpetual pitching of one ethnic group against the other in Nigeria’s underdeveloped politics. We should be careful.

Junaid Mohammed’s Hate-Rhetoric

By John Otu

The interview published in the Sunday Sun newspapers of December 13, 2015, of Dr. Junaid Mohammed, convener of the Coalition of Northern Politicians, Academics, Professionals and Businessmen, rankled in its sweeping generalization about the current agitations by members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and segments of the Movement for the Actualization of Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB). As I write, before me is Alvan Ewuzie’s mature rejoinder in Daily Sun of Thursday, Dec. 17, 2015 to Junaid’s tirade. Ewuzie’s thoughtful response to Junaid would have sufficed, as it addressed the highlights of Dr. Junaid’s irreverent remarks but a few more issues arising from the notorious interview need to be elaborated upon.

*Junaid Mohammed 

From his hasty conclusions and uncouth language, Junaid betrays his ignorance of Ndigbo and Nigeria’s political history. For him, Ndigbo are a conquered people who should ‘submit themselves’ to the superior race, as it were. Any action displayed by the agitators is thus adjudged by him as typical of Ndigbo. He says rather in an inductive leap, “Showing an open nepotism in what they do is their stock-in-trade. So people then say, “Look we are not going to have these Igbo people as leaders because their nepotism is absolutely intolerable.”

Our self-appointed convener is not done. He passes a peremptory judgment on the Igbo, threatening to report them to President Buhari to withdraw whatever miserable attention he has paid to them, “So if they continue to be unreasonable in this case insisting on getting some key positions or telling Buhari how to run the government, then he needs to take the right step by confronting them…”

My immediate reaction on reading Junaid was to question his claims to lofty pedigree and education.

Biafra As Nightmare And Fantasy

By Okey Ndibe

I have been distressed beyond words by what has crystallized as an agitation for Biafra’s divorce from Nigeria. I am disturbed that this agitation has become another occasion for the Nigerian state to demonstrate its disdain for the rule of law and the rights of citizens. I’m appalled by the violence spawned by the actions of the agitators and the state’s reaction. The immediate impetus for the violent turn is the continued detention of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), indeed the rabble rouser-in-chief of the neo-Biafran cause.

The government ought to release Mr. Kanu immediately, both because that’s the wisdom of the court and it’s the quickest way to defuse tension.

But Mr. Kanu’s release will not, by itself, erase the frenzied propagation of Biafra, an idea that represents a nightmare to some, and a fantasy to others. Sooner or later—sooner, one hopes, than later—Nigeria has to confront the inescapable question of what it means to be called a Nigerian.

That question (or the reluctance to engage it in any serious and sustained way) is one reason Nigeria has remained an alien and alienating idea, and susceptible to frequent acts of rejection by its ostensible citizens. Periodically, those expressions of everyday individual resentment and disaffection build into mass resistance.

It’s important to put the agitation for Biafra in the broader context of Nigerians’ longstanding disillusionment with their country. For the avoidance of doubt, this is no new phenomenon. Nigeria’s two literary giants, Wole Soyinka and the late Chinua Achebe, have wrestled with the confounding matter of Nigeria. A few years ago, Nobel laureate Soyinka asserted at a series of talks he gave at Harvard University that there was no nation yet in the space called Nigeria. Years earlier, Achebe had said to me in an interview that Nigeria had not yet been founded.

Nothing in the two writers’ claims amounted to a repudiation of Nigeria as such. No, they were making what I’d call statements of fact. The fact that Nigeria had yet to achieve a sense of national identity did not imply that such a prospect was doomed. I’d say that the two writers were warning the rest of us about what needed to be done in order to translate the abstract, ill-formed idea called Nigeria into a concrete, organic, salutary and regenerative reality.

Why Hasn’t Biafran Spirit Died?

By Asikason Jonathan

” What had started as a belief was transmuted to total conviction; that they could never again live with Nigerians. From this stems the primordial political reality of the present situation. Biafra cannot be killed by anything short of total eradication of the people that make her. For even under total occupation Biafra would sooner or without colonel Ojukwu rise up again”

– Frederick Forsyth

Let me start by disagreeing with Forsyth that apart from total eradication of Biafran people that Biafran spirit cannot be killed. The problem here is with the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and what Achebe described as the ‘Igbo problem.’

The 1999 constitution of the  Federal Republic  of Nigeria did not only incorporates the colonial mistakes of 1900s which made the Northern Nigeria a force  to be reckoned with in the country’s politics but it created also a leviathan out of the federal government to such a nauseating level that the component units are seen as dependents and not co-ordinates.

Many people have asked: what do Igbo people want? The answer is very simple! We want political inclusion, we want a society where fair play, justice and equity, rule of law and meritocracy reign – that’s just what Ndi Igbo want!

The resurgence in the agitation for Biafra lies on fact that the Igbo – 48 years after civil war – are yet to find their bearings in the Nigerian federalism. We are yet to distinguish between the dictionary and the political conception of the maxim: No Victor No Vanquished. Let us not forget Ojukwu’s question: What did he [Gowon] do to make the victor not being the victor and the vanquished not being the vanquished?

The Biafran Truth and the Illegal Trial of Nnamdi Kanu

By ‘Remi Oyeyemi

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

  – Arthur Schopenhauer

“I’m for truth, mo matter who tells it. I’m for justice, no matter who it’s for or against.”

–  Malcom X

With trepidation, I have been watching the subtle descent into dictatorship by the administration of Muhammadu Buhari. I have been watching with disgust President Buhari’s war against freedom of speech. I am very concerned about desperate attempts by President Buhari and his sentries to muzzle the voice of self determination. I am very upset that a government of All Progressive Congress that claimed to love freedom is engaged in deliberate subjugation of innocent citizens who happens to have different views about the state of the polity.

*Nnamdi Kanu

I am very concerned that an innocent man is being denied his freedom. I am scared that an innocent man is being subjected to illegal detention. I am not comfortable that an innocent man is being tried for desiring freedom for his people. I am very disturbed that a non-violent man is being inflicted with unwarranted and undeserved travails. I am worried that a lot of unwary observers who are not properly schooled in the elementary tenets of democracy are vilifying an innocent man.

Nnamdi Kanu is an innocent man. He has not committed any crime to make him deserve the kind of treatment being meted out to him. You do not have to like Nnamdi Kanu. You do not have to agree with him or his desires for his people. But no one has the right to deny him his fundamental human right to be free. No one has the right to deny him the right to self-determine his destiny as he sees it or wants it. No one has the right to shut him up because they do not like what he is saying or because they feel threatened by what he is saying.

Mr. Kanu’s exploits are known to all and sundry.  His desire is to have a homeland for his people. His desire is to free his people from the shackles of Nigeria. His desire is to see his people get to the promised land of Biafra. His dream is to see his people in control of their own destiny. His desire is to have a say in who governs him and his people. His desire is to ensure that no oligarchy or neo-oligarchic interests within the Ndigbo homeland is able to hold his people in bondage. His desire is to be able to water the tree of liberty for his people. There is nothing criminal in or about all this.

In all this, he has only employed semantics. He has only deployed sophistry. He had only appropriated the airwaves to be able to reach his people. He has not acquired arms. He has not killed anybody. He has not declared any armed war against anyone or organization. The only war he has ever declared is against the continued subjugation, enslavement and denigration of his Igbo people. It is a war of idea. A war of and for the minds of his people to see what he is seeing, to desire what he is desiring, to dream what he is dreaming. And he is doing that peacefully. He has been able to make his case to the majority of Ndigbo and the youths of that nation who are indeed the future of Biafra.

He is mobilizing his people to engage in the struggle to be free from their enslavement by the Nigerian State. He is making a clarion call for his people to stand up for their rights and self determine their destinies, or collective destiny. He has been innovative. He has been peaceful. He has been determined. He has been methodical. He has been deliberate. He has been consistent. He has persevered. And he is making sacrifices. There is nothing criminal in or about this.

Biafra: A Home Truth

By Chuks Akamadu

THE current pro-Biafra wind blowing across the length and breadth of south- eastern Nigeria and some contiguous parts of the south-south geo-political zone reminds me of the timely warning of the Emir of Kano, Sanusi Lamido. Not too long ago, the banker- turned traditional ruler was reported to have cautioned the nation on the grave danger in failing to pay proper attention to the worries of Ndigbo, noting that this generation of Igbo youths would likely dare the Nigerian state in an unimaginable manner since they neither suffer from a hang-over of the Nigeria/Biafra civil war – having not witnessed it, nor do they harbor any memories of that darkest page of Nigeria’s story book.

I would like to add that the present crop of Igbo youths grew up with a be- ware-of-the-enemy-within mindset, a siege mentality and a vanquished orientation, all of which combine to leave them in highly inflammable state. To make matters worse, the environment where they were nurtured was (and still is) rich in lack, rich in deprivation and rich in hostility. It is little wonder, therefore, that they willingly received the strange dogmatic exhortations of an Nnamdi Kanu and his Radio Biafra as food (holy sacrament, if you like) to their drained souls.

Elsewhere, I had argued that who I see on the streets clutching Biafra flag are not Biafran patriots – and they are not Biafra enthusiasts either; they are frustrated youths who are at war with a system that appears irrevocably committed to shrinking their individual prospects of survival and forecloses their chances to prosper.
Fortunately for them, the Radio Biafra hate ministrations capture, in significant ways, both their corporate imagination and existential realities whilst Nnamdi Kanu’s present duel with the law has offered them a window for self-expression.

Biafra Is A Challenge, Not A Solution

By Emeka Asinugo

The current agitation for the unconditional release of the director of Radio Biafra, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, and the resuscitation of the Biafra nation became more intense after Kanu was arrested during his visit to Nigeria from the UK about a month ago. Before then, the Nigerian government had nothing to worry about a rather distantly located “pirate” radio station and whatever influence it may have been exerting on any section of the country.

Because I recently wrote about Nnamdi Kanu and the Biafra dream, I would not have liked to be dragged into the issue of Biafra any longer. But after listening to my colleague Emma Agu addressing the Biafra issue on YouTube, I was obviously disturbed. Mr Agu and I worked in the defunct Nigerian Statesman newspaper in the early 1980s and I know that he is a respected veteran journalist.

I was disturbed because I know that the Biafra issue is not a matter anyone can conveniently wish away or easily dismiss with a wave of the hand. Biafra was a reality. It happened. And that is perhaps why, in his wisdom and foresight, the universally respected Igbo writer, Professor Chinua Achebe, wrote his last book and titled it “There was a Country”.

Indeed there was.

The Nigeria-Biafra war ended about 45 years ago. And if you take a cursory look at what is happening, you will find that the people demonstrating in Nigeria and Overseas about Biafra and Nnamdi Kanu are all below 45 years of age. Most of them were possibly born in the Biafran side of Nigeria during the war. Their birth certificates say they are Biafran citizens. Those of us who live in Europe and America know what that means. We know the value and importance of birth certificates.

Some of these people who were born in Biafra could have witnessed what happened to their families during the war with the eyes of childhood. And the experience could have remained indelible in their minds. When the war ended, Nigeria did not address this issue of Biafran birth certificates. So, as far as those children born in the Biafran side of Nigeria during the war are concerned, they are Biafrans.

Soon after the war, General Yakubu Gowon introduced his ‘3Rs’ – an acronym for reintegration, rehabilitation and reconstruction. It was his vision of implementing his National Development Plan [NDP], following his “no victor, no vanquished” declaration at the end of the war. 

It is 45 years since. Yet, most Igbo who were either born in Biafra or fought on the side of Biafra are yet to be reintegrated and fully rehabilitated into the Nigerian mainstream. Some of them come from the Igbo heartland. Others come from such riverside areas as the Niger Delta Region. Marginalization which was the foundational cause of the Nigeria-Biafra war is still very much the problem of the nation.

The Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu I Knew

By Nnanna Ijomah
On this day the 26th of November three years ago Chief Emeka Ojukwu passed away, and on this third anniversary of his death, I want to join millions of Nigerians to honor and celebrate his life. In 1988, I was an unemployed young Political Science graduate, resident in Lagos, when I first met Chief Emeka Ojukwu, by way of recommendation and introduction by some mutual friends, one of whom was my cousin, who had informed me that he, the Ikemba was looking to employ a Personal Assistant.

The odds of my getting the job was further enhanced and I would say virtually assured when during the interview at his Villaska lodge residence, the late Dr Chuba Okadigbo walked in and practically vouched for my intellectual ability and competence to do the job for which I was about to be hired. For those who might be wondering how Dr Okadigbo came into the picture. It so happened that a few years earlier during the commencement ceremony of the University of Benin, the late Dr Okadigbo had taken note of me when I was presented with an award, as the best Political Science student in the degree exams.

On that fateful sunny afternoon, 22 years ago, I found myself standing before the Ikemba, a larger than life figure, whom I'd heard so much about all through my teenage years during the civil war. But now in my early twenties, standing before him, I was not only scared and nervous, but also full of admiration and respect, while at the same time experiencing an overwhelming feeling of excitement, just for being in his presence. As I gazed at those bulging eyes, each time he made a point of emphasis, I could not but feel a sense of accomplishment, just for achieving this great feat of being there. At that moment in time as I remember it today, whether I ended up getting the job or not, I was going to savor this once in a life-time opportunity for all it was worth. After a few pointed questions and a detailed explanation of what the job entailed, he proceeded to ask me if I was ready to start work right away. Thus began my association with the Ikemba. A job which I can truthfully say afforded me the most learning experience of my life.

During the period I worked for him, Ikemba was more than just my boss. He was a father figure in the sense that he treated me like a son. He was my mentor and was very protective of me. When I decided to leave for the United States, he did not try to dissuade me from doing so. Rather he encouraged me to leave, since at that point in time some government officials were snooping around, making inquiries regarding the contents of the book we were working on. The general impression at the time was that he the Ikemba was writing a book about the Civil war. 

The book generated so much concern in certain quarters that he, Ikemba got worried about my safety, and in his own words, said to me " they can never do anything to me, but they can come after you in their attempt to know what the book is all about and I would not want you to get into any kind of trouble on my account'. Months later in 1989, he sent me an autographed copy in New York. 

President Buhari's Biafran Contradiction

By Chuks Iloegbunam  

 
Nearly six weeks after it started, President Muhammadu Buhari finally reacted to the agitation for Biafra, which has been sweeping through some cities of the South East and South South geopolitical zones. The President chose two events inside last week to make his position known. The first was the investiture of His Royal Majesty, Igwe Alfred Nnaemeka Achebe, as the 7th Chancellor of the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. The second was the graduation ceremony of the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, Plateau State.

These following sum up the President's position on the Biafran agitation:

* "Government would not fold its arms and watch, while some individuals and groups create unnecessary tension in the country in the guise of seeking to break away from Nigeria."

* "Let me again call on per­sons or groups in the country who have some grievances to submit to peaceful and dem­ocratic means of expressing themselves."

* "I therefore sound a note of serious warning that the corporate existence of Nigeria as a single entity is not a sub­ject of debate and will not be compromised."

Now, the fact that it took the President nearly two months to comment on a matter that had elicited three specific threats of military re­sponse by his field command­ers probably makes the point that, in his graph of national importance, the Biafran agita­tion is no more than a vexa­tious distraction.

But, it is still welcome that he spoke late than not at all. What if he de­cided against uttering a word on the subject? After all, he has so far treated all the substanti­ated reports of the rampage and wanton killings of Fulani herdsmen across the length and breadth of Nigeria with a deafening silence. He has also treated in the same manner all the calls for his government to address the report of the properly constituted National Conference of 2014.

Now, it is assumed in quar­ters that claim comprehensive understanding of President Buhari's brand of politics that the man is not given to talk­ing glibly. He is said to expend enormously in the critical sec­tor of consideration before he ever deems it necessary to make a public statement. This means that it is in the best interest of those who have heard to accept that what the President has said on the Bia­fra agitation is his irreducible stance.

Solving The Biafra Agitation Problem

By Hannatu Musawa

Bckground: For 16 years now, the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) has made its voice heard. Emeka Ojukwu was alive when MASSOB was formed but he never gave it support, nor have important political and traditional leaders of south-eastern Nigeria. MASSOB leader Ralph Uwazuruike has, several times, clarified that MASSOB is not a violent group and will not engage in armed struggle. The group has relied on some provisions in the United Nations Charter, especially those relating to people’s right to self-determination.  What has made MASSOB and its younger sibling IPOB (Indigenous Peoples of Biafra) popular both at home and abroad is the occasional crackdown on their members during peaceful protests.

*Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu being sworn 

in as the head of state of the Republic of 

Biafra in May 1967

Referendum?
If a referendum were held today, there is no doubt that over 70% of people in the five south-east states would vote YES for separation. A little over 50% in Rivers State would also vote YES. Between 40% and 50% might vote YES in other south-south states: Bayelsa, Delta, Cross River, Akwa Ibom and Edo.

A similar result might be reproduced if the people of the south-west were to be subjected to a referendum to determine whether Oduduwa republic should come into being.

Therefore, the Federal Government should not agree to a referendum. Every section in Nigeria feels marginalised in Nigeria, apparently because the country is not practising true federalism. The state of the nation’s economy is also a contributor: Many have fallen on hard times and become frustrated.

Political Reform
Political reform is the way to go. The current 36-state structure is not working; it should be replaced by a six-region federal structure. The 2014 National Conference, therefore, needs to be re-examined. The government can go back to that conference and other previous conferences and provide a white paper. Barring any obstacle that may be constituted by the National Assembly, a new political structure should take effect from 2019, along with a new revenue allocation formula. There would not be loud cries over Biafra or Oduduwa or Boko Haram after a restructuring that would shift the country away from Unitarianism. Nigeria needs a weaker centre and stronger regions.

Tackling IPOB and MASSOB
Agitation for Biafra is heightened by the overzealousness of security agents. The agencies should be restrained from arresting people involved in the peaceful demonstration. On occasion, criminals attempt to hijack peaceful protests; anyone caught in acts of lawlessness could be arrested briefly and then prosecuted in court immediately. Similarly, operators of illegal radio stations like Nnamdi Kanu should be charged to court immediately. There have been at least three court decisions directing that Kanu should be released, but he is still held even after he has met his bail conditions. The government itself should abide by the rule of law.

Asaba Massacres Committed By Nigerian Troops, Not Biafran Troops - Anioma Group

Press Release

The attention of the Proudly Anioma-Proudly Igbo Group of Nigeria, a friendship/family group of Anioma people and their eastern Igbo kith and kin has been drawn to a “Press Release” written by some deluded individuals claiming to speak on behalf of the entire Anioma people. To begin with, it is important to note that the said group “Ndi-Anioma” as they call themselves is not the umbrella body of the Anioma people at home and in the Diaspora. This responsibility lies with the Izu-Anioma organization head by Brig. Gen Alabi Isama (rtd), the Ajieh-Osa, Anagba and Ochiagha of Utagba land.

In the charter of Izu-Anioma, the Anioma people were not defined as an “ethnic group” but rather an umbrella body covering the people identified in the course of Nigerian nationhood as West-Niger Igbos, Western Igbos, then Midwest Igbos , Bendel Igbos and now its often called Delta Igbos. Anioma is a political identity covering the entire area and was coined by the venerable Chief Dennis Osadebay in the late 1970s. It is important as well to note that our leader, Gen. Isama has stated in several fora and without any bit of contradiction that Anioma people are Igbos.

We of the Proudly Anioma-Proudly Igbo organization concur with his assertions. Therefore any claim, a self-seeking one for that matter by a group of political wannabes parading themselves as “the umbrella body of Anioma people” should not be taken by the general public seriously. Their rant is not worth a pinch of salt. We are aware that those parading themselves as “umbrella body of all Anioma people” have their loyalties tied to a particular political party in Nigeria. With such interests, their unfounded claims should not be taken by the public seriously.

As stated by one of our leaders Col Achuzie, the Ikemba of Asaba, we believe that the issues leading to the end of Biafran war and the pacification which followed thereafter has not assuaged a good percentage of the Igbo people of Nigeria that they have been fully integrated in the country. Many of them still feel they have been treated as second-class citizens and there are empirical evidences to suggest that some of these claims have some taints of truth and reality in it. Among some of the issues include the slicing off of some Igbo communities out of core Igbo states and merger to other states. We can give examples:

1.      The area of Ndoki south covering the present Oyigbo (originally Obigbo) transferred from the old Aba division and lumped to Rivers State in 1976. Also, in the 1980s, three Ndoki villages namely Ohaobu, Mkpukpuaja and Ogbuagu villages carved from the then Imo State and lumped to Etim-Ekpo LGA of Akwa Ibom State. It is noteworthy to state that Oyigbo LGA apart from Oloibiri was the first place in Nigeria to produce oil and gas in commercial quantities (at Afam). Unlike Oloibiri which has dried-up since the 1980s, Afam and other Oyigbo oil-fields keep yielding vast quantities of petroleum.

2

*Achuzia 

   2. Egbema communities now in Rivers State. Egbema has 16 villages and out of these 16 villages , 3 namely Mgbede, Aggah and Okwuzi has the largest reserves of oil and gas in the community. This is apparently the reason they were lumped to Rivers while the other 13 villages were left in Imo State where they had to contend with more modest reserves of the commodity.