The Biafra of My Dreams (Revisited)

  On the 30th of May 1967, the late Lieutenant-Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu declared the Republic of Biafra as a secessionist state from Nigeria. This sparked off the Nigerian civil war that lasted from the 7th of July 1967 until January 1970. Fortunately or unfortunately, at the end of the war, Biafra was not to be. It is no news that Nigeria, as it is, was born out of the selfish desires of the British for easier control of their interests across the different regions of the country with oil being the most important, and as it were the Nigerian Government was backed militarily by the British in their quest to retain the oil-rich Biafran region. The truth is that if Nigeria had no oil, or if the bulk of the oil was found elsewhere but the southern region, or if the southern region had made Shell/BP a better deal than they had with Nigeria, Biafra would have been in existence today.

The agitation for Biafra in Ojukwu’s time was mainly as a result of the massacre of Easterners in the north and by the distrust, unhealthy and often fatal rivalry between soldiers from these regions in the Nigerian Army. It was also relatively easy -for lack of a better word- for the old Biafra to rise because Nigeria then was set-up in regions with each region having a Governor and a set of elites in its consultative assembly. As soon as Ojukwu - being the governor of the eastern region - decided that Biafra should rise, and the elites in the consultative assembly voted for it, the wheels were set in motion. The Eastern region was made up of the present-day Rivers, Delta, Akwa-Ibom, Cross-river, Imo, Abia, Ebonyi, Anambra and Enugu states; therefore, Biafra would have been a very viable country.

Fast forward to this day, Nigeria has been split into 36 states and six geo-political zones: south-west, south-east, south-south, north-west, north-east and north-central. The geopolitical zones were said to have been created in order to bring states with similar cultures, ethnic groups and common histories together. As plausible as this may seem, it did a huge disservice to the former Eastern Nigeria and to any future talk of a Biafran State. A look at the map of Nigeria as it concerns the geopolitical zones shows the anomaly in the south-east/south-southern region. Whilst the other regions appear to be in geographical lumps, the south-south region almost circled the south-east. The south-eastern region consisting of the Igbos is the smallest in landmass, and apart from that, this zoning has repainted the mental picture of Biafra from that region of 9 states to that of 5 and from a region of about 3 ethnic groups to that of 1. Biafra has become mainly an Igbo affair.

Ojukwu's argument for a Biafran state was plausible - with the then constant massacre of Ndi-Igbo in the North, the retaliation in the eastern region and the mass migration of Ndi-Igbo from the north, it made sense that for peace to reign, these peoples should go their separate ways. Whilst such inter-ethnic violence is not commonplace today, some Igbos feel that they are being politically marginalised and hence the present-day agitation for Biafra. But is this plausible? To address this issue, I shall look at the problems of Ndi-Igbo, the practicality of a Biafran State solving these problems, and the way forward.

I can boldly say that the problems of Ndi-Igbo in present-day Nigeria isn't about political posts in the Federal government or lack thereof. A pointer would be considering that the Northern region has produced the most Heads of State and Presidents in Nigeria, yet many states in the Northern region remain very backward. In contrast, an Eastern region that was ravaged by the civil war has somehow managed to shed itself of the dilapidation and destruction following the war even without producing a single head of state since then. Truth be told, it would only be fair that every ethnic group is given a fair chance and opportunity to contribute to the development of Nigeria and anything short of that breeds disunity, however, I believe that Ndi-Igbo should be more in pursuit of substance i.e. the development of Ala-Igbo which wouldn't come just by producing the President of Nigeria or occupying juicy positions in the Federal Government. Igbo Governors and elites remain the source of their major problems more than the Federal Government is, so breaking away from Nigeria as a means of solving an in-house problem that would still follow them is very unwise.

Take for instance the issue of marginalisation, even in Igboland as in other parts of Nigeria; Ndi-Igbo are segmented into senatorial zones (the state-level of geopolitical zones) within states and some feel marginalised. Go to Imo State, the Owerri and Okigwe senatorial zones are of the opinion that the Orlu zone has marginalised them in terms of the number of times it has produced Governors and the juicy positions occupied by Ndi-Orlu in Imo State. This problem is inbred, communities fighting over the right to Ezeships; appointments at the State level seemingly lopsided and consisting of some zone than the others; admissions into tertiary institutions being based on States, senatorial zones and Local government Areas (LGA) of origin; and was it not just a few years ago that former Governor Theodore Orji of Abia state sacked every Igbo who wasn't an indigene of Abia State from the Abia State civil service. So, assuming Biafra comes to be, should every State, geopolitical zone, LGA and community start agitating for a breakaway whenever they feel they are being marginalised? Or do those who are agitating for Biafra think these issues would automatically fix themselves?

Additionally, the continued agitation for Biafra in the guise of marginalisation only serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is so because if Ndi-Igbo keep trying to break away because they have not produced a Nigerian President; other parts of the country would keep looking at them with suspicion and therefore keep denying them the chance to produce a President in the fear that an Igbo President would facilitate the establishment of Biafra.

As earlier mentioned, Ojukwu’s agitation for Biafra was not only plausible; it was backed by the elite in the eastern region and actively so. Today, Nnamdi Kalu -the leader of the group called the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) - in the face of lack of any reasoned argument for the need to create a Biafran state - had decided to use propaganda to drum up support. In essence, he had decided to lie to none other than the Igbos; he had decided to use the message of hate instead of reason; in essence...he is using deception to persuade gullible Igbos into supporting his group. However, the gullible are usually the uneducated and that is why you would hardly see educated Igbo elite supporting him. Yes, there may be some, but those are the exceptions rather than the rule. In the name of supporting Biafra, some people even go as far as ripping their Nigerian passports apart and sharing videos of the act on social media; and yes they get praised for it. I have noticed that almost all the passport-rippers have a very poor command of the English language and are definitely the uneducated who have managed to make their way abroad with no intention of coming home. Whilst some Igbo brothers back home will be motivated to fight for Biafra by seeing such videos, those abroad tearing their Nigerian passports and agitating for Biafra wouldn't be home to fight when the war eventually starts; after all, they do not have Nigerian passports and to get to so-called Biafra you will need a Nigerian passport or visa.

That brings me to the issue of war. It is very obvious that no Nigerian president would want a part of Nigeria to secede under his watch; therefore, the creation of Biafra would not happen over a cup of tea, some signatures and a handshake...it would need war. Nnamdi Kalu and his group have been spreading lies about the United Nations having a charter which states that if a people have pushed for self-determination after X number of years, they should be allowed to secede from their host country. According to them, this charter gives Biafra the right to self-determination having struggled for over 45 years. This as usual is a blatant lie and was meant to deceive. Just twice did the charter of the United Nations and statute of the International Court of Justice mention the term "self-determination" and it was to dissuade the control of 'smaller/weaker' countries by foreign powers. You can see a copy of the charter here. IPOB has also lied about the African Union and United Nations having accepted Biafra as a member state of the AU and UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Visit here to see the lie; visit here for a list of the AU's ECOSOC members, and here for UN's ECOSOC members. These lies were meant to give unsuspecting Igbos the false hope that Biafra has been recognised internationally and that only Nigeria stands in its way. It tries to misinform Ndi-Igbo that since Biafra already has the support of international bodies, all that is needed is for Nigeria to allow the secession preferably over a cup of tea; that failure to do so may result in a war which Biafra will win since the UN and AU both support them. All lies.

There is no doubt that Igbos who survived the civil war will be bothered about the current agitation and demonstrations for Biafra, and it is quite obvious that those who are out in the streets are those who have never experienced war. One can commend them for their 'bravery' but I think they do need to sit back and think more about what they are doing and are asking for; these are my reasons:

1. Their leader’s base: Nnamdi Kalu is based in the United Kingdom and has always boasted about not having a Nigerian passport. Since he can travel to the US and other parts of the world, he does have a passport and that is most probably the UK passport. He isn't based in Nigeria and perchance his lies eventually lead to war, he most probably wouldn't be in Nigeria not to talk of Eastern Nigeria to fight alongside his brother-agitators. It is also a curious case that most of those who are educated and who support the current agitation for Biafra all appear to stay abroad. Why don't they come home and join the agitation instead of 'safely' carrying placards in the USA, Canada, Thailand, UK and other parts of the world while those in Nigeria get shot at?
   
   
2.  A Biafran state after the war: I keep telling people that had Biafra been established by war under Ojukwu, maybe...just maybe...it wouldn't have been the country Biafrans thought it would be. There was every chance that Ojukwu’s Biafra would have been a state under dictatorship with the Ojukwus and/or their cronies being leaders for life...some sort of North Korea or Eritrea if you may. There was also every chance that different warlords would have emerged and the leadership of Biafra would be a constant bone of contention...some sort of Libya or South Sudan if you may. Presently, Biafra has MASSOB and IPOB and there seems to be some friction between the two groups. If there is a Nigerian-Biafran war that ends up with Biafra being created, the war may have just begun as MASSOB, IPOB and some other groups that may emerge could battle over who leads the new Biafra.
   
   
3. The thinking that Biafra will be viable and wealthy: Many pro-Biafrans imagine the prospect of a small oil-rich country; they typically imagine a Biafra with all the States in the south-south geopolitical zone bar Edo state. However, the truth is that Biafra is an Igbo affair and the majority of those pushing for it are Igbos or have very close ties to the Igbo tribe. Charles Inko-Tariah, the leader of the South-south Alliance Project echoed this when he said:

   We want to make it categorically clear to those behind this wicked and selfish act, especially the so-called IPOB that no part or territory of the South-South belongs to the South-East. Rivers State and indeed the other South-South States are not Igbos, so don’t involve us in your planned agitation and struggle for a Biafran state. We don’t believe in Biafra and their so-called Biafra radio, we believe in ourselves as Niger-Deltans, our challenges are peculiar, so stay clear from our land with your so-called struggle…

   Of course, this is just the view of an individual or at most a group of individuals; but I can testify that it is the common view held by south-southerners. I have seen associates and acquaintances from that region attack pro-Biafran agitators and Igbos in general for thinking that the South-south shall be part of Biafra.
   
   
   As gullible as these pro-Biafran agitators can be, they cite the support of Asari Dokubo as a pointer that South-south, in general, is indeed for Biafra. Whilst Asari Dokubo may provide arms if this agitation for a Biafran state leads to war…perchance the Nigerian Government is trounced in the war and decides to let the south-south and south-east become Biafra; I see an Asari Dokubo who would quickly mobilise for a secession of the south-south from Biafra. Why? It would be an easier struggle and because Biafra shall still be perceived as being purely an Igbo affair.
   
   
   Furthermore, after the civil war…the struggle for Biafra was not continued until recently. This allowed the Igbos to integrate well with the rest of Nigeria; the result being that most Igbo businessmen have their big businesses located outside Igbo land; we have Igbos who work for the Nigerian Government; we have Igbos whose livelihood is directly dependent on the ‘union’ called Nigeria; and above all, most of the Igbo elites and educated Igbos do not support the present agitation. This makes it not only difficult for Biafra to come into existence, but also makes it difficult for Biafra to be viable if it does come into existence. Factor in the possibility that there would be strained relationships between Nigeria and the newly established Biafra, then it becomes even more precarious. If the Nigerian Government decides to sack every Biafran under its employ, would the Igbo man who has a federal job meant for Nigerians renounce Nigeria, resign from his job, sit down at home and hope Biafra becomes heaven on earth? If the Nigerian Government decides to make Nigeria an uncomfortable place for Biafrans to own businesses, properties and to live in, would the Igbo businessman who has a big industry in Lagos, renounce Nigeria and carry his complex and customers down to the east? What will those Igbos who have various properties across Nigeria do? Surely, with Igbo states even struggling to pay salaries because of meagre internally generated revenues and reduced subvention from the Federal Government; if a Biafra is created now, I can only imagine it being a country of unemployed and impoverished people. No right-thinking Igbo man would want that as a price to pay for a geographical location with the name Biafra...at least not in the present condition
   
   
4. The thinking that the problems of Ndi-Igbo would automatically be solved: This particular issue cannot be overemphasised. In fact, all I see are pro-Biafran agitators who know not what they are asking for and why...they just want Biafra and to be called Biafrans. There is an Igbo adage that says "onye n'amaghi ebe mmiri bidoro maba ya agaghi ama ebe ono kwusi ima ya". What really is the problem? Why must this Biafran state be established? Is the main problem marginalisation by the Northerners and South-westerners in the Nigerian polity? If yes, is such not going on in the states in Igbo-land and what plans are in place to make sure it doesn't continue in Biafra? Is the problem the neglect of Igbo-land by the Nigerian Federal government? If yes, do you not think that Governors of State in Igbo-land have done worse and should be the ones to get a stick? Is the problem the fact that Igbos have few top positions in the Nigerian Government? If yes, to what extent did previous Igbo ministers and Senate Presidents change the lots of Ndi-Igbo? What really is/are the problems? And apart from wanting Biafra, what are the solutions to these problems? You just don’t say that because a pot of soup you prepared tastes funny, you want another one…why does it taste funny? And what is the likelihood that the new pot of soup wouldn’t taste funny as well?

The Biafra of my dream

The Biafra I dream of isn’t going to be a State, it is going to be an ideology. It will be an ideology that seeks to solve the problems inherent in the Igbo nation. It shall be an ideology that seeks to enthrone and enforce good leadership in the Igbo States, it shall be an ideology that seeks to develop the Igbo nation industrially, it shall be an ideology which ensures that State Governors are held accountable for their stewardship and that Igbo sons and daughters contribute positively to the greater good of the Igbo nation, even as part of Nigeria.

Imagine a Biafran ideology which could call for civil disobedience in any state where the leaders are not performing; a Biafran ideology that could bring everyone together to fight bad leadership with every legal means; a Biafran ideology that encourages investment in Igbo-land; a Biafran ideology that sees quality education as the currency in Igbo-land; a Biafran ideology that ensures that only credible persons are elected in Igbo-land; a Biafran ideology that looks out for the interests of every Igbo-man in the spirit of “onye aghala nwanne ya”; a Biafran ideology that seeks a confederation other than a state…an ideology that could best be psychological and socio-political. I must state that it isn't going to be your average Ohaneze Ndi-Igbo and wouldn't be easy to achieve, but it is more realistic than a Biafran state.

If this ideology shall yield expected benefits and self-dependence is tested with the Igbo nation as part of a Nigerian confederacy, it shall become easier to tell whether a sovereign state is needed or not and to make sure that every Igbo man has a say in it…I make Scotland in the United Kingdom a point of reference.

And finally, being called ‘Igbo’ is an identity enough, so for those who want 'Biafra' just for identity sake…I really have nothing to say to you.

The Oracle has Spoken!!