Nigeria In Disarray: Waiting For Damnation

 By Uzor Maxim Uzoatu  

This Fiction Called Nigeria: The Struggle for Democracy by Adewale Maja-Pearce; (Verso, UK, 6 Meard Street, London; Verso, US, 388 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, New York; 2024; 185pp) 

Adewale Maja-Pearce does not pull his punches in his prolific engagements in public intellectual pugilism. He packs quite a punch, and comes strongly recommended by such eminent worthies as Jeremy Harding of London Review of Books who writes thusly: “Adewale Maja-Pearce is Nigeria’s most dependable journalist.” 

There is no denying the fact that Nigeria as a country is in dire straits. It is as though Africa’s most populous nation is forever thrust in suspended animation, especially after the heavily flawed 2023 presidential elections. Incidentally, Adewale Maja-Pearce starts out with these words: “This book was written against the background of the 2023 elections.” 

Nigerians Dying Like Flies Hit By Broom

 By Dele Sobowale

“Many people sold their boys and girls for a little rice…Hunger stalked us…People of all ages began to die….Everyone had to live with half-empty stomachs …People started looting, searching for food” – Bijoykrishna, survivor of the Bengal famine in 1943 (BBC, February 23, 2023)

*Tinubu

The old man talking is reported to be 102 years old and one of the few survivors of the famine which killed millions in Bengal while World War II raged on around them. The savagery of the war and extremely bad weather resulted in horrible harvests. Suddenly, parents were “eating” their kids. Or what do you call selling your children to buy food? It happened in Bengal in 1943; it can happen anywhere – including Nigeria.

Buhari, The Man Who Loathes Nigeria

By Ikechukwu Amaechi

Ordinarily, I wouldn’t have bothered commenting on former President Muhammadu Buhari, the man who, rather than build, spent eight years in power dismantling Nigeria, brick by brick because for me, his voyage into oblivion is good riddance. After Buhari’s eight ruinous years, Nigeria really needed a breath of fresh air.

*Buhari 

Whether the new order enthroned last Monday constitutes a refreshing change which Nigerians clamoured for remains to be seen. But no one can possibly be worse than Buhari. But I am intrigued by Buhari’s adversarial disposition to the country that gave it all for him. In his last days in office, he spoke condescendingly about Nigeria, in a manner quite unbecoming of a president.

Agenda For The Next Nigerian President

By Uzor Maxim Uzoatu

This is the season of high-wire politicking, and some contenders and wannabes are talking tough on rescuing Nigeria from ruin once they are elected as the country’s President.

Anybody elected as the President of Nigeria in this woebegone time must have as the first item on his agenda the organization a proper national conference on how the diverse peoples of Nigeria can get to live together.

It is very imperative now that Nigerians need to talk on how to co-exist before any progress whatsoever can be made.

The Collapse Of The Nigerian Tripod

 By Uzor Maxim Uzoatu

Nigeria today stands on wobbly legs, and what needs to be done to make the country to stand steady and strong is to go back to where the rain started beating the country in the modern day.

At independence in 1960, Nigeria was said to stand on a pivotal tripod of East, West and North. The 1967-70 Nigeria-Biafra war ensured that the North in alliance with the West defeated the East.

The oppressed minorities of course took sides with the victors because nobody would ever want to be in the corner of losers.
That is a simple historical fact, and any other embellishments only exist to serve expedience.

Why Are More Nigerians Getting Poor?

 By Ray Ekpu

The descent by Nigerians into the poverty hole seems very rapid despite the country’s fabled wealth. In the 70s we were swimming in wealth. That was why the Yakubu Gowon government approved the windfall called Udoji awards. With the Udoji bonanza, workers were catapulted from being pedestrians to the adorable class of car owners in one swift jump.

The government spread its wings to the West Indies as a Father Christmas picking up the bills of civil servants in a couple of those countries. That was the time that the government felt that money was not a problem. What was a problem was how to spend it. And did we spend it? Yes, we did. That is how we had the rice and cement armada, which choked our ports and proved to be a curse rather than a cure for our existential problems.

Muslim-Muslim Ticket: Christianity Would Suffer At Nigeria’s Seat Of Sovereignty

 By Olu Fasan 

Every well-meaning Nigerian must remain outraged by the choice of a Muslim-Muslim ticket by Alhaji Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the presidential candidate of All Progressives Congress, APC. Every patriotic Nigerian should be appalled by the utter insensitivity and perniciousness of the calculated decision that belittles Christianity and puts religious harmony and internal cohesion at greater risk in Nigeria. Of course, the issue won’t go away; we will discuss it until next year’s elections. My focus here is the symbolism of the choice. 

*Shettima, Tinubu

Self-servingly, some have mischaracterised the opposition to the Muslim-Muslim ticket. Recently, Festus Keyamo, a minister of state for labour and employment and spokesman of the Tinubu presidential campaign, said it was about “balance of power”. According to him, Christians feared losing power at the centre if Tinubu became president with Kashim Shettima, a fellow Muslim, as his vice-president. He said this was misguided because the vice-president “is powerless”.

Cemetery Of Corruption Called Nigerian History

 By Uzor Maxim Uzoatu

There is talk here and there of bringing back History with a capital “H” in the Nigerian school curriculum. It is cool by me to do a short history course with the ruling party, APC, and President Muhammadu Buhari. Necessary lessons need to be learnt before the elections that will lead into the next dispensation of Nigeria’s much touted democracy.

To start back in time, Nigeria’s first coup as arranged by Emmanuel Arinze Ifeajuna, Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, Adewale Ademoyega, etc. did raise the issue of corruption as a major prong of why they struck to sack the First Republic.

The entire coup attempt got mired in the corruption of ethnic politics until there was the bloodier counter-coup in which the revenge squad wanted secession, code-named “araba”, until the British colonial masters advised against herding into arid nothingness. Of course, the Nigeria-Biafra war supervened, and after the war, the youthful Head of State Yakubu Gowon proclaimed “No Victor, No Vanquished” and “Rehabilitation-Reconciliation-Reconstruction” that became more fictional than Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart.

Muslim-Muslim Ticket: Christianity Would Suffer At Nigeria’s Seat Of Sovereignty

 By Olu Fasan

Every well-meaning Nigerian must remain outraged by the choice of a Muslim-Muslim ticket by Alhaji Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the presidential candidate of All Progressives Congress, APC. Every patriotic Nigerian should be appalled by the utter insensitivity and perniciousness of the calculated decision that belittles Christianity and puts religious harmony and internal cohesion at greater risk in Nigeria. Of course, the issue won’t go away; we will discuss it until next year’s elections. My focus here is the symbolism of the choice.

Self-servingly, some have mischaracterised the opposition to the Muslim-Muslim ticket. Recently, Festus Keyamo, a minister of state for labour and employment and spokesman of the Tinubu presidential campaign, said it was about “balance of power”. 

According to him, Christians feared losing power at the centre if Tinubu became president with Kashim Shettima, a fellow Muslim, as his vice-president. He said this was misguided because the vice-president “is powerless”.

Nigeria: The Conversation We Don’t Want To Have About Biafra!

 By David Hundeyin

Fourteen years ago, when I was a 19-year-old fresher at the University of Hull, I met Ify. She was at that time, probably the most beautiful girl I had ever set my eyes on. I immediately tripped, hit my head and went into an infatuation coma.

Ify was the quintessential social butterfly – witty, friendly, distinctly intelligent and culturally Nigerian, with a few notable modifications like her South London accent and a slight tomboy streak.

*Biafran children... 

I think my eyeballs actually turned into heart emojis every time I saw her, and within a week of starting university, my mission in life was to get Ify to be my girlfriend. The problem was, it didn’t matter how much time and attention I dedicated to her – Ify was not interested in me.

We were very good friends, but as time went on, it became clear to my great dismay that she and I as an item, was just never going to happen. Eventually, I gave up on Ify and retired to lick my metaphorical wounds, completely assured in my 19-year-old wisdom that I would never love again.

Same Country, Different Worlds

Lekki Massacre Begins To Look Like Asaba Massacre

 By Tony Eluemunor

Give it time, and the Lekki Toll-Gate Massacre will assume the nature of the Asaba Massacre. Then, it will have no official mention but will live on in the memories of those directly affected. And like the Asaba Massacre, it could assume a life of its own, and refuse to die whether or not it received the Fed­eral Government’s confirmation.

Last October 10, I wrote in this column: “The Federal troops thun­dered into Asaba on the 5th Octo­ber 1967. The Biafrans had melted away as the immediate command­er, the late Col. Joe Achuzia (a son of Asaba), opted to retreat to Onit­sha as a lorry load of cutlass was all he was given to defend Asaba with. He blew up the Niger Bridge on the 5th. Then, the indiscrimi­nate killing started. It turned hor­rendous on the 6th and became fiendish on the 7th.

Let Us End The Nigerian Civil War!

 By DAN AMOR

For those who were born during or after the Nigerian Civil War, recent publications, provide an illuminating pathway to the events that led to the war. No nation among the third world countries makes a stronger claim on the interest and sympathy of Africans than Nigeria. What Nigeria has meant to the black continent and to blacks across the world, makes her future a matter of deep concern. Nigeria might be doddering or tottering behind less endowed African countries as a giant with feet of clay, no thanks to the tragedy of irresponsible leadership. 

  *Displaced South Easterners during the Biafra-Nigeria War

But whatever happens to her usually serves as a huge lesson for other African countries. To view therefore with judgment and comprehension the course of present and future events in Nigerian life and politics, we must possess knowledge and understanding of her past, and to provide such understanding within concise compass, we must consult history. Yet it is an unbiased, disinterested and unprejudiced inquiry into the history of our country that will ensure that we leave a legacy of truth for generations yet unborn.

In fact, the true story of Nigeria must begin with the foundations of the nation-its geographical and economic character; its socio-political and religious influences and the psychology of its peoples. 

Besides the existence of multi-ethnic nationalities before the fusion of the Northern and Southern Protectorates in 1914 by Lord Fredrick Lugard, a British imperialist military commander, and the almost 100 years of British colonial rule, the great period of post-independence crisis – 1960 – 1970 – must be vividly delineated for posterity.

The death in November 2011 of Dim Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu who has come to symbolise that great epoch of epic struggle brought to the front burner of national discourse, the issues and convergent forces at play in the Nigerian Civil War. But recent developments point to the fact that our leaders who prefer to learn their geology the day after the earthquake would want history to repeat itself. 

Unfortunately, rather than telling in bold dramatic relief, the tragic and magnificent story of what brought about the war and its aftermath, some commentators have elected to mislead the reading public on who actually caused the war. Some have even pointedly accused Chief Ojukwu of having masterminded the war in order to divide Nigeria. 

What can be more mischievously misleading than the deliberate refusal to allow the historical sense transcend the ephemeral currents of the present and reveal the spirit of a people springing from the deepest traditions of their tragic experience? How could one begin to appreciate a legend who continued to be astonishingly misunderstood even when the realities of the factors that pushed him to rise in defense of his people are damning on the rest of us more than 50 years after his action? Why is it so difficult for us to appreciate the fact that Ojukwu had come to represent, in large and essential measure, not only a signification of heroism but also a courageous attempt to say no to an emerging oligarchy which was bent on annihilating his people from the face of the earth? 

No Nigerian in his right senses should support any nebulous attempt to re-awaken the Biafran experience. But if we believe the time-tested aphorism that few men are austere or dull-witted enough to scorn the pageantry and romance of history, then we must ask ourselves why, for God’s sake, would people become so barren in thought as to hold the view that Ojukwu caused the Nigerian Civil or what some mischievously call the Biafran War? 

Even for those of us who were born during the holocaust that was the war itself, a deep reflection on what brought it about cannot in all sincerity be divorced from the greed and unbridled ambition of Nigerian politicians – the quest to dominate others and the winner-takes-all mentality of the lackeys to whom the colonialists handed over power on a platter of gold. 

Why must we forget so soon the blatant rigging of the 1964 Western Region election by the Federal government – controlled Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) in favour of S.A. Akintola at the expense of Chief Obafemi Awolowo of the Action Group who was believed to have won that election in the first place? How can we forget so soon that it was the upheaval that followed that manipulation in the Western Region and the inability of the government at the centre to contain it that orchestrated the January 15, 1996 military coup and its aftermath? 

In fact, in all the accounts of the developments that led to the war, both local and international, none particularly mentioned Ojukwu as a key player in either the coup of January 1966 or the July 29, 1966 counter revolutionary coup led by young Hausa/Fulani soldiers. Ojukwu’s response to the wanton killings of Igbo and other nationals of Eastern Nigerian origin was a latter day development which in all practical purposes followed the natural course of history. He was just an uncommon patriot who responded decisively to the issues of the day. 

We bow courteously before the mighty personages of other traditions. The appeal of Nigeria’s annals is not that of a success story. The record of our soulless country is strangely somber. Like in France, our earliest heroes might be heroes of defeat. But the story is shot through with episodes of unequaled magnificence. That history is repeating itself just as we recall our ugly past shows that it is the destiny of Nigeria to live dangerously. 

Last month, January 15, 2021, Nigerian leaders pretended to have marked the 51st anniversary of the end of the Nigerian Civil War. All of them, including the victims of the war itself who pretend not to know, went to the graves of the "unknown soldiers" to lay wreaths in remembrance of the supreme price they paid for Nigeria to be one. Yet, in the minds of most notoriously undemocratic Nigerians, the war has not yet ended and the country is not yet one. The last administration made an Igboman Chief of Army Staff and brought the Civil War to its knees. He prosecuted the Boko Haram war almost to its logical conclusion. 

          *Ojukwu, Ankrah and Gowon at Aburi, Ghana, 1966
But another man came and reversed what the last administration did by insisting that an Igbo cannot be Chief of Army Staff; cannot be Chief of Air Staff; cannot be Chief of Naval Staff; cannot be Chief of Defense Staff and cannot even be Inspector General of Police. The current one is saying that the civil war has not ended; that the vice presidency which the South East attained seven years after the war was an error. No. It is not true. The Civil War which ended on January 15, 1970 must be laid to rest. No victor, no vanquished. 

Between 1800 and 1945, there have been pockets of civil wars across the world before the Nigerian Civil War which was fought between 1967 and 1970. There was the Castle Hill convict rebellion, 1804; the Gutierrez-Magee Expedition (Texas) 1812-1813; Argentine Civil Wars, 1814-1880; Zulu Civil War, 1817-1819. There was also the Long Expedition (Texas), 1818, 1821; the Greek Civil War, 1824-1825; the Freedom Rebellion (Texas), 1826-1827; Liberal Wars (Portugal), 1828-1834. The American Civil War was fought between April 12, 1861 and May 9, 1865 and the Spanish Civil War was prosecuted between July 17, 1936 and April 1, 1939. All these civil wars ended and the respective countries became more united than before. 

If the Nigerian Civil War has been fought and won or declared "no victor, no vanquished" by Gen. Yakubu Gowon, then it must have meaning and the end taken to its logical conclusion. The South East must produce the next Inspector General of Police and the Service Chiefs, for Nigeria to move forward. God has endowed this country with all that is needed for it to blossom into one of the best countries in the world. We must end sectional greed and domineering postures for Nigeria to get there. The Nigerian Civil War must end without much ado. Let this country be great again.

*Amor, a public affairs analyst resides in Abuja

Assessment Of Nigeria’s 59th Independence Anniversary

By Guy Ike Ikokwu

The situation in Nigeria today, is egregious and monumental that it gives a great majority of our peoples a feeling of total hopelessness in such a way that the general belief is that there must be a catalyst within the system.

It is now clear to the Nigerian masses that they have been deprived of their sovereignty for more than 50 years by the high ranking military personnel since January 1966 which torpedoed the civilian democratic norms inherited in various discussions with our British colonialists who had acted equivocally in their own self and economic interest. 

We have had 9 constitutions in 25 years to usher in real democracy which our young heroic musician and artist Fela Anikulapo Kuti called “Demon – Crazy” that was a philosophical thoughtful expose but the perspectives of our past decades show that our system of governance has really been demonic till this day! The last 1999 constitution which Nigeria had was initiated by Gen. Abudulsalami Abubarkar. Today we know that the 1999 constitution was a fraud as it was not delivered by the people of Nigeria. 

The Asaba Massacre Trauma, Memory, And The Nigerian Civil War

–A Review By Chuks Iloegbunam 

Authors: S. Elizabeth Bird and Fraser M. Ottanelli.

Publishers: Cambridge University Press (2017).

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

We find this introduction in the book:

“In October 1967, early in the Nigerian Civil War, government troops entered Asaba in pursuit of the retreating Biafran army, slaughtering thousands of civilians and leaving the town in ruins. News of the atrocity was suppressed by the Nigerian government, with the complicity of Britain, and its significance in the subsequent progress of that conflict was misunderstood. Drawing on archival sources on both sides of the Atlantic and interviews with survivors of the killing, pillaging, and rape, as well as with high-ranking Nigerian military and political leaders, S. Elizabeth Bird and Fraser M. Ottanelli offer an interdisciplinary reconstruction of the history of the Asaba Massacre, redefining it as a pivotal point in the history of the war. Through this, they also explore the long afterlife of trauma, the reconstruction of memory and how it intersects with justice, and the task of reconciliation in a nation where a legacy of ethnic suspicion continues to reverberate.”

Having read the book, I attest to the veracity of the above claim. The credibility of the publication is grounded in the impeccable academic credentials of the authors. Bird is Professor of Anthropology at the University of South Florida. She has to her credit more than 80 articles and chapters on popular culture, media, heritage, and memory, as well as five books, two of which are award winning.

Ottaneli, her co-author, also of the University of South Florida, is Professor of History. He has authored and co-authored four books and several articles and essays on radical movements, ethnic history, and comparative migration in the twentieth century.

Yet, credibility often rides on more than the currency of academic triumph. On Africa, for instance, notable literary voices like Chinua Achebe and Ngügï wa Thiong’o have argued that the continent’s stories are better rendered by Africans and in their own tongues. But their standpoint does not invalidate the benefit of detachment often achieved by non-partisan non-Africans. This point profits from the consideration that, through half a century, Nigerians have failed to agree on what actually happened in Asaba on October 7, 1967.

The authors are mindful of the fact that they are liable to the charge of appropriating and running with a story not their own, a charge that, of course, pays scant attention to the reconstruction of today’s world as a Global Village in which what happens in Alaska is much the business of its denizens as it is the concern of the inhabitants of Sarawak. Thus, they take the pains to state that funding for their book did not come from Africa, while the story they have told is the result of extensive research, and the aggregation of the voices of massacre survivors, the relations of the victims and other assorted quarters. All told, 77 people were interviewed. The result is a 239-page book of six chapters:

Biafra At Fifty

By Ray Ekpu

It was on May 30, 1967 that Col. Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, the military governor of Eastern Nigeria, declared that region the Republic of Biafra. A few weeks later, Col. Yakubu Gowon, Nigeria’s head of state, declared war on the secessionist territory. The war dragged on for 30 horror-filled months until the Biafrans threw in the towel in January 1970. Gowon announced a three-point programme of Reconciliation, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction. A few days ago, Biafra became 50 and was marked with a solemn seminar titled “Memory and Nation-building: Biafra 50 Years After.” It was well attended: Olusegun Obasanjo who commanded troops in that war and later on became head of state and President of Nigeria; Prof. Yemi Osinbajo who was in primary school then but is now the Acting President of Nigeria; Ahmed Joda who was one of Gowon’s super permanent secretaries at the time. He headed the Muhammadu Buhari transition committee in 2015. John Nnia Nwodo, the President of Ohaneze Ndigbo, a former minister of Information and a scion of the famous Nwodo family; Professor Ebere Onwudiwe, a well-known political scientist and public intellectual.

There were several others, most of them young Igbo intellectuals who were probably not born during the war. There was nothing substantial or divergent to be expected from a group like that. It was largely a gathering to do some introspection on the lessons of the war and why Biafra as an idea has not gone away. It was an exercise in admonition and not quite a forum for soul searching. But it was worth it because since the end of the war things have not moved swimmingly either for the Igbos or for Nigeria. There have been renewed agitations for the actualisation of Biafra as a republic. The agitators have been harassed and detained by security agencies but there is no let-up in the agitation.

Today’s Biafra is a lingering echo of the Biafra of 1967 and of the fact that many years down the road many Nigerians feel excluded from Nigeria’s dinner table which means that we have not been able to build an inclusive, consensual union that caters for all interests fairly, equitably, and in a fashion that is not perceived as discriminatory and sectional. When the Federal Government sites amenities and makes appointments in a manner that is nakedly discriminatory then that is the real spelling of exclusionism. Exclusionism is a reflection of bias and lack of trust which leads in turn to reciprocal bias and lack of trust. That is not bridge building, not nation-building.

When Gideon Orkar did his coup some years ago against the Ibrahim Babangida government he said he was carving some states out of Nigeria. Such an attempt at fissure was a product of accumulated frustration with the state of the union. Since then not much has been done by elected politicians at the Centre to give a new and sincere approach to nation-building and inclusiveness as articles of faith.

50th Anniversary Of Africa’s Bloodiest Coup d’état

By Chuks Iloegbunam

The first shots shattered the peace of the night at the Abeokuta Garrison of the Nigerian Army a few minutes after midnight on July 29, 1966. Three casualties lay instantly dead in the persons of Lieutenant Colonel Gabriel Okonweze, the Garrison Commander, Major John Obienu, Commander of the 2nd Reece Squadron, and Lieutenant E. B. Orok, also of the Reece Squadron. It was the beginning of the much-touted revenge coup of Northern Nigerian army officers and men against the regime of Major General Johnson Thomas Umunnakwe Aguiyi-Ironsi. By August 1, when Lieutenant Colonel Yakubu Gowon assumed power in Lagos as Nigeria’s second military Head of State, the bullet ridden bodies of both Ironsi and his host, Lieutenant Colonel Francis Adekunle Fajuyi, the military Governor of Western Nigeria, lay buried in shallow graves at Iwo, outside Ibadan.  “Within three days of the July outbreak, every Igbo soldier serving in the army outside the East was dead, imprisoned or fleeing eastward for his life”, observed Professor Ruth First in The Barrel of a Gun: The Politics of Coups d’Etat in Africa [Allen Lane The Penguin Press, London, 1970, p317.]

*Yakubu Gowon

But Africa’s bloodiest coup did not stop at that stage, despite the shooting deaths of 42 officers and over 130 other ranks, who were overwhelmingly Igbo. The killing sprees and ever-expanding killing fields spread like wild fire across most of the country. There were three phases to the coup – the Araba/Aware massacres in northern Nigeria pre-July that called for northern secession, the July Army bloodbath, and the ethnic cleansing that went on for months after Ironsi had been assassinated and his regime toppled. The maelstrom prompted Colonel Gowon into making a radio broadcast on September 29, 1966. This was the kernel of what he said: 

“You all know that since the end of July, God in his power has entrusted the responsibility of this great country of ours into the hands of yet another Northerner. I receive complaints daily that up till now Easterners living in the North are being killed and molested, and their property looted. I am very unhappy about this. We should put a stop to it. It appears that it is going beyond reason and is now at a point of recklessness and irresponsibility.”

But Gowon’s salutary intervention changed nothing, as the massacres continued unabated. Northern soldiers and civilians went into towns, fished out Easterners and flattened them either with rapid gunfire or with violent machete blows, leaving their properties looted or torched. According to the Massacre of Ndigbo in 1966: Report of the Justice G. C. M. Onyiuke Tribunal, [Tollbrook Limited, Ikeja, Lagos] “…between 45,000 and 50,000 civilians of former Eastern Nigeria were killed in Northern Nigeria and other parts of Nigeria from 29th May 1966 to December 1967 and although it is not strictly within its terms of reference the Tribunal estimates that not less than 1,627,743 Easterners fled back to Eastern Nigeria as a result of the 1966 pogrom.”

This is contemporary Nigerian history, only 50 years old. But when experts like Dr. Reuben Abati and Professor Jonah Elaigwu write about it, they lose all sense of numeracy and statistical acuity, and glibly state that the July 29, 1966 counter-coup cost “many” Igbo lives. Well, the truth is that the July 29 counter-coup appears to be the bloodiest in the world’s recorded history because the casualty figures it posted far outstrip those registered in decidedly bloody coups like the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which King James II of England was overthrown by an invading army led by William III of Orange-Nassau; the 18 Brumaire of 1799 coup in which General Napoleon Bonaparte overthrew the French Directory on November 9, 1799; the Wuchang Uprising of 1911 that overthrew the Qing Dynasty and led to the establishment of the Republic of China; the Bolsheviks October Revolution of 1917 that led to the creation of the Soviet Union; and the Iraqi coup d’état of 1936, the first among Arab countries. Each of these coups/revolutions led to war. But none of them managed anything near the sea of blood occasioned by July 29, 1966.

Given their interest in posting photographs and videos on the Internet by Instagram and Snapchat, and advertising mostly poor language on Facebook and other such portals, today’s Nigerian youths may know next to nothing about what led to the catastrophe of July 29. But the details follow here for those of them interested in learning. The problem sat rigidly on the superficiality of Nigeria, a geographical expression contrived by colonialist Britain. At Independence in 1960, the country operated a federal system of government with three powerful regions that didn’t take dictation from Lagos, the nation’s capital. A fourth region, the Midwest, with capital in Benin City, was created in June 1963. But destroying the very fabric of the artificial political entity were tribalism and corruption, corruption which by today’s standards, would seem like cloistered nuns delightfully engaging in a game of Ping-Pong!

Nigeria: A Country Of Unequal Stakes

By Amanze Obi  

It is sometimes said in certain circles that the Yoruba is the only ethnic bloc, among the ma­jor ones in Nigeria, that has not called for the dismemberment of the country. Individual Yoruba may have, at various times, wished and called for a divided Nigeria. But the people as a group have never done so publicly. Rather, the Yoruba have been advocating for a regional ar­rangement that will whittle down the powers of the centre. This is a middle ground position.

However, you can hardly say the same thing of the other ethno-political blocs. Those who have a sense of history will readily recall that the North was the first to call for the dismem­berment of Nigeria. The bloody coups of Janu­ary and July 1966 ignited feelings of secession in most northerners. Even though the coun­ter coup of July 1966 and the pogroms that followed were supposed to calm the frayed nerves of the North, they did not. Rather, the region bayed for more blood. It was in that fit of bitterness that the idea of secession crept into their imagination. Consequently, the less restrained among them began to advocate for a divided Nigeria. It was in response to the pre­vailing mood in the North at the time that the Yakubu Gowon government, in August 1966, declared that the basis for one Nigeria no lon­ger existed. Even though the North later went to war to enforce the idea of one Nigeria, it is a historical fact that the region was the first to nurse and propagate secessionist sentiments in the country.

If the North was the author of a divided Nigeria, the East was its finisher. The coun­ter coup of 1966 and the pogroms had taken a heavy toll on the people of East. The situation was made worse by the fact that the people of the region had nobody to appeal to. The Feder­al Government led by Yakubu Gowon, a north­ern army officer, was complicit in the blood­letting. The situation, regrettably, drove the Eastern region into a precipice. That was how it came to declare its own republic. Strangely, however, the Gowon that had, a few months earlier, held that the basis for a united Nige­ria no longer existed was the one that took up arms against the secessionists. That was hy­pocrisy in action.

The war has since been lost and won but the Igbo, who were at the receiving end dur­ing the war years are still perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a group that is ever ready to quit the Nigerian setting once an opportunity pres­ents itself.

Given the fact that it is always the preroga­tive of the victor to rewrite history, events took an unexpected turn in post-Civil War Nigeria. The ruling military junta, which was dominated by the North gradually but steadily bastardised the country’s federal set-up. The principles of federalism were not only eroded, the country’s republican status was yoked to­gether with strange systems, which ended up corrupting the original idea. The result is that Nigeria, as we have it today, is neither a federa­tion nor a republic.

This incongruous set-up has been fueling agitations for either a divided or restructured Nigeria. While the North is holding tenacious­ly to the present order, apparently because it is benefitting unduly from the incongruity, the other blocs of Nigeria are differently per­suaded.

Nigeria: The Futility Of Bandaging Septic Wounds

By Chuks Iloegbunam

December 1994 and June 2016 are two ep­ochs, separated by 22 years, which send an unambiguous and implacable message – the impracticality of the most mouthed of Nigeria’s platitudes.

Dig this: In December 1994, a hysterical crowd forced itself into a Police station in Kano and bundled out a detained Gideon Akaluka, a young Igbo trader and Christian, who had been falsely accused of using pages of the Koran like toilet paper. The mob decapitated Gideon, spiked his severed head and carried it around town like a trophy.

*President Buhari and Emir of
Kano, Sanusi

On June 2, 2016, Mrs. Bridg­et Agbahime (74), an Igbo housewife and Christian, was seized in Kano and lynched – on a false charge of blaspheming Islam. Naturally, there has been the anticipated outrage and up­roar from the afflicted camp. It could be treated just like an­other statistic: an old woman murdered because she was of an unwanted ethnic group, and because she professed a religion that, in the eyes of her killers, automatically made her an in­fidel.

There are screams for the cul­prits’ apprehension and punish­ment. But, that does not address the problem; it merely scratches at the surface of a malignant tumour. Of course, it is natural for some Nigerians to blow hot air in the face of difficult chal­lenges. Still a fundamental clari­fication is imperative because anyone unaware of the sources of their pummeling stands little chance of activating a defence mechanism.

The crucial point is the politi­cally contrived dispensability of the Igbo life. It started in 1943 in Jos, when the first massacre of Ndigbo took place. There is a documented history to it all, which the volume entitled Mas­sacre of Ndigbo in 1966: Report of the Justice G. C. M. Onyiuke Tribunal [Tollbrook Limited, Ikeja, Lagos], will help to ven­tilate.

First, some background in­formation. Following the po­grom of 1966, the Supreme Military Council of General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi set up a judicial tribunal of inquiry to investigate the grotesquery. But, days before the tribunal was to start sitting, Ironsi was assas­sinated and his regime toppled. Lieutenant-Colonel Yakubu Gowon, who succeeded Iron­si, promised that the tribunal would carry on with its assign­ment. When this promise was negated, Lieutenant-Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, the Military Governor of Eastern Nigeria, had no op­tion but to establish the Onyi­uke Tribunal via an instrument called the Tribunal of Inquiry (Atrocities Against Persons of Eastern Nigeria Origin: Per­petuation of Testimony) Edict 1966.

Buhari: Misguided Passion For One Nigeria

By Amanze Obi

President Muhammadu Buhari was recently quoted as saying that it is better for all Nige­rians to “jump into the sea and get drowned” than for Nigeria to divide. The president had his reasons. He said Nigeria fought a civil war which claimed over two million lives in or­der to remain united. This supreme sacrifice by Nigerians for Nigeria, he seems to be say­ing, cannot be thrown away just like that. The country, he also argued, is strong and united to­day because some people laid down their lives. For these reasons, he said he would not allow “kids” promoting the agitation for the division of the country to have their way.

*Buhari 

A few weeks into this outburst, the president is already living up to his vow. His army and po­lice have descended mercilessly on defenceless Biafran agitators, killing scores of them. The president has also deployed warships and fight­er jets to track down militants who have been blowing up oil installations in the Niger Delta.

Curiously, however, the president has taken no action against Fulani herdsmen whose mur­derous activities have become a clear threat to national unity. Maybe someone should remind the president that if Biafran agitators and Niger Delta militants are a threat to national unity, armed Fulani herdsmen are much more so.

There is no doubt that the president is pas­sionate about the idea of one Nigeria. But his passion appears to be driven by sectional, if not self-serving factors. That may explain why he has ignored or overlooked the historical fact that no country has ever survived two civil wars. If he is truly conscious of that, he will be less belligerent in his declarations and ac­tions on Biafra, Niger Delta militancy or any other separatist agitation in the country. The president is probably under the illusion that a segment of the country will rise against the fed­eration in the way it once happened with the possible consequence of an armed struggle.

Regardless of this extremity in language use by the president, we must indulge him by over­looking his flagellations about war and suicide and, instead, address our minds to the idiosyn­cratic convictions and motivations that inflame the language of passion in some old breed Ni­gerians.

We will, without relying so much on the pas­sions of the Buharis, the Obasanjos and the Go­wons of this country about one Nigeria, agree that the country, ideally, is better of as a united entity. We need not elaborate on this here. Suf­fice it to say that the aforementioned veterans are essentially driven by one passion. They do not want their labours over a united Nigeria to be in vain. Having fought in their individual and collective capacities to keep the country one, they would not want to witness a reversal of this in their life time. That is why they are always on edge whenever any reference, no matter how casual, is made to the possible dis­integration of Nigeria.

Buhari: Time To Change Strategy

By Sunny Ikhioya

Strategy is the path, course or way we choose to attain our goals. There are many strategies. What succeeds in one clime may not in another. We have not been adopting the right strategies to the challenges facing this country and that is why we are still adrift. What are the goals and vision of Nigeria as a nation? It is a united, peaceful, strong and prosperous nation. How close are we to attaining these goals? Very far, the reason is that we keep applying the same remedy to the same problem without success and successive regimes have been guilty of this.

*Buhari

The present government is threading the same path and will get the same result unless it re-directs its course. Not a few of us are agreed of the fact that President Muhammadu Buhari represents the best hope for the stabilization of this country, at this point in our history. This is why his coming was greeted with general acceptance from every part of the country.

Even President Goodluck Jonathan’s trouble shooter, Chief E K Clark did a u-turn and welcomed his coming. There was relative peace in the land from the south to the north in the first two months after the elections; even the dreaded Boko Haram was silent. Nine months into the government, disillusionment is beginning to set in and pockets of resistance are beginning to spring up here and there. How did the regime squander the goodwill it received then? Will it continue to hold the past government responsible for its inactions? Don’t we know already that the past government performed woefully? Is that not why they were voted out? Were we not promised change and no less? President Muhammadu Buhari The principal thing in the movement forward for this country is peace and tranquility, we can only get that if we are united with a common purpose, every time this country has moved forward in terms of development, there has been almost unanimity of purpose by all. Before the coming of the military, the regions were run autonomously and each progressed accordingly.

The Yakubu Gowon years, backed by oil money also witnessed a period of happiness for Nigerians, even the devastation caused by the civil war was ameliorated to a great extent but outside these two regimes, what have we seen? The enthronement of mediocrity by successive rulers: ethnicity, cronyism, sectional interests, religious acrimonies and glaring inequitable distribution of our common wealth, through shameless manipulations and rationalisations. Let us not deceive ourselves, until we address the challenge of ‘oneness’ in this country, we will make no progress. No economic miracle can address that, even if you bring in the best brains, the people must be willing to be led. Nine months after, why are the pockets of resistance on the rise? The government must avoid situations where dissidents manifest.

It is always better to talk than to allow them to go underground. Ben Ezeamalu writing in the February 1 edition of Sahara Reporters quoted Max Abrahms thus; “History shows that terrorist groups are extra ordinarily difficult to snuff out once they have reached a critical mass. The truth is that terrorism is very easy to perpetrate.” The solution to checking insurgency is openness, equity and proper rule of law. When you allow the law to take its course naturally, without any interference, the people will be open to your intentions but when the law courts have made pronouncements and you use wisdom and logic to do otherwise, then it is obvious that you are only adding fuel to the already ignited fire.

President Muhammadu Buhari is still suffused with the military culture. Unfortunately, with what the world has come to realise, extreme force does not give you results. We must begin to apply very effective means of communication between the government and various interest groups. Government decisions must not be seen to be biased or favoring particular interests. Speaking in Addis Ababa as reported in the Vanguard of February 1, 2016, President Muhammadu Buhari said; “The theft of the oil market by some Nigerians who happen to live there who feel that the oil belongs to them and not the country is an irritating thing for those of us who participated in the civil war for 30 months in which at least 2million Nigerians were killed”.

Such a statement is inappropriate at this point in our history, where various ethnic groups are clamouring for their freedom to determine how their God given resources are managed. Is Buhari telling us that the north participated in the civil war because of the oil in the Niger Delta? Before then, what was the formula for revenue sharing accruing to the nation? With the sacrifices of the Niger Delta to the development of this country, they surely deserve a better treatment, instead of spiteful and disdainful comments that will further incite the people. Why are the oil wells ceded to people from other parts of the country and not indigenes of the place? Why can’t the people enjoy the fruits of their sufferings, that is fruits from the environmental degradation of their land, severe health risks and pillaging by international oil companies and the federal and state governments? Such are the causes of insurgency in the land.

The solution to Nigeria’s problem lies in a total restructuring of the system. First do away with the over bloated and wasteful central government and allow the states and regions to determine their resources. They will then be free to collaborate with whoever and whatever neighbouring states that they deem fit. We should not take the issue of insurgency lightly, at least the Boko Haram has shown us enough of that. You can only look at Iraq, Syria and Libya to see a vivid picture of what happens when insurgents are allowed to thrive. 

As I was rounding up this piece, news just came that a foreign vessel has been hijacked in the Nigerian waters, this has not happened for some years now. Are we going back to the dark days in the south south waters? Do we have the wherewithal to contain the Boko Haram, Niger Delta militants and Biafran separatists simultaneously, if push turns to shove? Our strategists must analyze the situation carefully and advise the government correctly. History has shown that you achieve more with talking than to war-war, without peace and unity; there cannot be any economic or political progress.

Sunny Ikhioya, a commentator on public issues.