President Muhammadu Buhari inset on Biafran logo
TO
the man in the street, the recent renewed agitation for an independent
state of Biafra might appear like a drop in an ocean, as the majority of
the Igbo ethnic nationality of the South-East geopolitical zone, it
would be argued, are indifferent to the clamour for a separate nation.
But for the informed political watchers, who understand the dynamics of
politics, nothing is exactly as it appears. The renewed clamour for
Biafra being championed by the now shut Radio Biafra and its arrowhead,
Nnamdi Kanu, as well as the Movement for the Sovereign State of Biafra
(MASSOB) led by Chief Ralph Uwazuruike, they would concur, is
potentially a still water whose depth is rather unknown.
For people in this category, the Federal Government might be facing a delicate issue that must be handled with every sense of responsibility and care, given the grave implications of the agitation for self-governance portend for the country’s political wellbeing and survival. According to those in this school of thought, the renewed agitation for Biafra should not be treated with a kid’s glove or in a brash and brutish manner, as the government has been doing with MASSOB. The government, they reasoned, should, as a matter of urgency, raise questions on what might have led to the latest round of agitations, especially going by the fact that such an agitation had brought the country to the brink of disintegration in the late 60s, when the late Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, following the reprisal and massacre of Igbo people in Northern Nigeria as a fallout of the 15 January, 1966 coup d’etat led by Major Kaduna Nzeogwu (the then Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, the Sardauna of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello and others were killed in the coup), Ojukwu had declared an independent state of Biafra.
Though the war was won by the Federal Government forces, it had set the country back by decades. It also led to the death of thousands innocent citizens caught in the war and destruction of critical infrastructure.
Regardless of the efforts made to forget that dark portion of the nation’s history, many a Nigerian still bears the ugly scar of the brutish war. And the country has continued to manage the postwar syndrome. Though many commentators and political scientists have pinpointed its sharp multi-ethnic, language and cultural diversities as the critical issues that all the federating ethnic nationalities must mutually discussed and agreed on, several attempts made to find lasting solutions to them through government decreed national conferences ended in futility.
Thus the country continues to grapple with the same problems it inherited from the British colonialists and also successfully created its own by building an army of disenchanted, mutually suspicious and ethnic-conscious citizenry. The Igbo particularly feel excluded from the political power space. They believe that they are being punished perpetually for the 1967 episode that plunged the nation into war.
Apart from the Igbo, other ethnic minorities in the country, the Itsekiri, Urhobo, Birom, Tiv, among others, are bitter over the domination by the major ones. They complain loudly of marginalisation, relegation and general injustice by the major ethnic groups, the Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa. Ironically, however, these major ethnic nationalities also moan about unfair and unjust treatment, particularly by the Hausa\Fulani, who have ruled the country longer than other tribes.
Therefore, when the renewed agitation for Biafra resurfaced, not a few Nigerians asked why the ghost of self-determination is being summoned again. While many people continue to dismiss the threats by the Europe-based Radio Biafra and its allies in MASSOB and other pro-Biafra groups, others have raised questions on where Igbo elders belong in the new development and whether there are genuine unresolved grievances that encourage the fresh calls for Biafra and how the government should handle the issue, which they describe as “critical, inflammable and sensitive.”
Though the polarisation of the Ohanaeze Ndigbo is said to not be helping the current situation, with the apex umbrella body of all Igbo accused of having lost its bearing, many Ohanaeze Ndigbo leaders have refrained from speaking openly in favour or against Biafra. Despite the difficulty in locating the tilt of the Ohanaeze Ndigbo in the renewed calls for an independent state of Biafra, however, Sunday Tribune findings showed that there were supporters and opponents of the youthful elements in the highly-respected body, with most of the elders, however, advocating peaceful resolution of all perceived grievances and continued understanding among all ethnic groups.
For the elders who believe in one Nigeria and its continued existence, it was quite easy to find a common ground with the rest of the ethnic groups in Southern Nigeria, where the Southern Peoples’ Assembly, an organisation comprising influential individuals across ethnic groups in South-West, South-East and South-South geopolitical zones, has been advocating dialogue, equity and justice within the Nigerian context. It was further gathered that most of the Igbo leaders expressed hopes in the country when a national conference, which was the clamour of most people from the defunct Southern protectorate, was convened by former President Goodluck Jonathan. Though the report of that conference was submitted before Jonathan handed over power, there are fears that the Buhari government, whose party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) opposed the confab, will not implement its far reaching recommendations that addressed issues of inequality and injustice that are at the heart of Biafran agitations.
Prior to the last national conference, the Ikenga of Nnewi and former president-general of Ohanaeze, Chief Dozie Ikedife, stated that he believed the time has come for Nigerians to resolve the issue of Biafra peacefully and amicably, saying: “The Biafrans don’t have a sense of belonging in Nigeria today, which is often expressed as marginalisation, and many other segments of the country are also talking about marginalization and not having a sense of belonging. Let us carve the thing off into manageable sizes, and new patriotism will be generated. Then we shall continue to rebuild whatever country we have with enthusiasm”, he added.
Perhaps, it was against that backdrop that a pro-Biafra group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), states on its website that “its meeting is lawfully convened under rights granted by the United Nations as contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People 2007.”
“We the Indigenous People of Biafra under Article 4 of the above UN Charter, is free to exercise our right to self-determination, we have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to our internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing our autonomous functions”, the group insisted.
To pro-Biafra groups, the issue of Igbo marginalisation tops the agenda of the cause for persistence calls for secession. For instance, the leader of MASSOB, Uwazuruike, whose activities have pushed up the renewed vigour for self-determination in Igbo land, strongly believes that the Igbo have not got a fair share of the national cake.
Uwazuruike was, in the cause of the struggle for what he described as Igbo emancipation, arrested in 2005 by the authority on treason charges and was released two years later. Between 2000 and now, other pro-Biafra movements have been teaming up for the crusade for self-determination. The first was Biafra Zionist Movement (BZM) led by Benjamin Onwuka, which split from MASSOB. Onwuka, a lawyer by training, declared a new state of independence on November 5, 2012 at an event during which at least 100 of his men were arrested.
In 2014, BZM also announced the rebirth of the Biafran Republic. In a statement released after the incident, the group explained that it had lost faith in the country following years of neglect and continuous killing of the Igbo.
“No
amount of threats or arrests will stop us from pursuing our freedom–
self-determination for Biafrans,” BZM’s national chairman, Edeson Samuel
had said, with Onwuka and 11 others later trying to broadcast live the
rebirth of a new Biafra Republic at the Enugu State Broadcasting Service
State before they were arrested by the police.
Today, Onwuka and his men are standing trial at the Federal High Court, Enugu for alleged treasonable offence, with efforts to secure bail for the separatists bail being impossible despite the case being adjourned sine-die. Ironically, all pro-Biafra movements preach non-violence as a means of achieving their goals.
However, an anti-Biafra group in Enugu, known as the “Concerned Citizens of Enugu State (CCES) described the recent protest by the pro-Biafra group in Enugu as “illegal, unacceptable, anti-democratic and an adventure that was capable of undermining the unity of the country and the existing peace and tranquility,” adding in a statement by CCES’ leader, Chief Jeremiah Udeh that it “condemns the unlawful approach of violent protests adopted by the so-called IPOB in promoting its course.”
Though many observers believe that the fresh agitation for Biafra should be addressed peacefully, many others view the plot as the rascality of a few disgruntled elements in the South-East geopolitical zone.
The Senator representing Kaduna Central and popular activist, Shehu Sani, described the agitation for the resurrection of Biafra as a plot to destroy President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration and cause chaos in Nigeria. He said those behind the Biafran campaign were pro-Jonathan government interests who lost out in the last general election and “are now clandestinely plotting to derail the democratic government of Buhari.”
“The new agitation for Biafra is a misguided, ill-conceived and ill-fated course; it is an ill-wind that does no good to those people who are blowing it or to Nigeria as a whole.”
But many political watchers would dismiss Sani’s claim as the usual jaundiced and ethnically motivated reactions by beneficiaries of current lopsided political arrangement to critical issue of national integration. But there are many others who share Sani’s view, who, in fact, only dismissed the resurgent calls for Biafra. But for many others like, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, one of the leaders of the pan-Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, the Biafra issue calls for caution. He urged President Buhari to take note of Biafra and other issues because of “certain effects.”
“There is nothing about separation in the country now and the president should take note of concerning Biafra and certain other issues, because of certain effects. What has been keeping us together up till today? That is why we have been calling for the restructuring of the country and implementation of the recommendations of the Confab reports. If that is done, it will silence the question of separation and all that. It is too late for anybody to talk of separation now, what we need to do is to work on how to consolidate our unity and the only way to do that is what we have been clamouring for- restructuring of the country through the recommendations of the Confab reports,” Adebanjo said.
A popular social media activist, Kayode Ogundamisi, also warned against the clampdown on Radio Biafra, though he described it as an avenue for “those with siege mentality to vent.”
Ogundamisi, in a widely circulated article online, said: “Agitation for the State of Biafra is not a crime, as individuals/groups can advocate for a right to self-determination, what would be wrong is for them to dismember themselves from the territory of the Federal Republic of Nigeria without the consent and agreement of the other federating units. Biafra agitators would have to wage a war against the Federal Republic of Nigeria to do that and would have to be prepared for the consequences (positive or negative) of such action.”
A public commentator, SKG Ogbonna, also warned the agitators, saying “the negative effect of the agitation for Biafra, like the Niger Delta secession declaration, the war itself and the post-war regime on the Igbo as a people on one hand, and the continuous cohesion and knitting of the peoples of Nigeria of today on the other hand, should have relaxed any mania on any possible disintegration of Nigeria.
“The simple answer to the enigmatic question on the division of Nigeria as it stands today is the negative. Is Nigeria to be divided on the bases of geopolitical zones i.e. six countries, or on the ethnic lines i.e. over 350 countries or on religious concentrations i.e. at least three countries? Ogbonna asked.
An Igbo socio-cultural organisation, Igbo Renaissance Movement (IRM), however, proffered a solution to the situation, urging Igbo leaders to approach President Buhari with humility on the marginalisation claim, warning the Igbo to stop building towers of isolation and antagonism.
In a position canvassed by National Coordinator and secretary of the group, Chief Chris Chukwubuzor Azuka and Deacon Kingsley Godwin, the IRM noted that the Igbo race was being haunted by its “blind politics of hate, bitterness, isolation and greed over the years. This is the time for the Igbo to engage in honest self-examination and soul-searching. The important challenge facing Igbo nation now is that of leadership and, therefore, stakeholders must put the house in order for common good”.
In line with the pan-Igbo group’s view, Imo State governor, Rochas Okorocha also recently appealed to politicians from the South-East geopolitical as well as leaders in the zone to join hands with him to support the present administration of President Buhari to enable the people of the zone to be on the same page with the Federal Government in the current political dispensation. Okorocha maintained that President Buhari is fully determined to work with the region, noting that the president has given assurance that the South-East would not be left out of the political and economic equations of Nigeria.
As the clamour by pro-Biafra groups in the eastern part of the country continues, the Presidency has said it has mandated the governors of the region to settle the matter and ensure peace and stability in the region but many questions remain unanswered.
How long will the agitation for Biafra State continue? At the heart of the struggle is the place of Igbo in the power equation. For instance, when will the pendulum of the nation’s presidency swing to the South-East region? Even in the current dispensation, the North is being accused of indiscriminate sharing of the spoils by playing the winner takes all hand. What happens to the South-East, ravaged by erosion, among other environmental challenges? When and how will the Federal Government address these issues and many others, which have largely set the South-East back and especially the perceived hatred for Igbo in a section of the country?
These are the Igbo questions within the Nigerian question, the resolutions of which might engender lasting solution to the crises rocking the country.
For people in this category, the Federal Government might be facing a delicate issue that must be handled with every sense of responsibility and care, given the grave implications of the agitation for self-governance portend for the country’s political wellbeing and survival. According to those in this school of thought, the renewed agitation for Biafra should not be treated with a kid’s glove or in a brash and brutish manner, as the government has been doing with MASSOB. The government, they reasoned, should, as a matter of urgency, raise questions on what might have led to the latest round of agitations, especially going by the fact that such an agitation had brought the country to the brink of disintegration in the late 60s, when the late Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, following the reprisal and massacre of Igbo people in Northern Nigeria as a fallout of the 15 January, 1966 coup d’etat led by Major Kaduna Nzeogwu (the then Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, the Sardauna of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello and others were killed in the coup), Ojukwu had declared an independent state of Biafra.
Though the war was won by the Federal Government forces, it had set the country back by decades. It also led to the death of thousands innocent citizens caught in the war and destruction of critical infrastructure.
Regardless of the efforts made to forget that dark portion of the nation’s history, many a Nigerian still bears the ugly scar of the brutish war. And the country has continued to manage the postwar syndrome. Though many commentators and political scientists have pinpointed its sharp multi-ethnic, language and cultural diversities as the critical issues that all the federating ethnic nationalities must mutually discussed and agreed on, several attempts made to find lasting solutions to them through government decreed national conferences ended in futility.
Thus the country continues to grapple with the same problems it inherited from the British colonialists and also successfully created its own by building an army of disenchanted, mutually suspicious and ethnic-conscious citizenry. The Igbo particularly feel excluded from the political power space. They believe that they are being punished perpetually for the 1967 episode that plunged the nation into war.
Apart from the Igbo, other ethnic minorities in the country, the Itsekiri, Urhobo, Birom, Tiv, among others, are bitter over the domination by the major ones. They complain loudly of marginalisation, relegation and general injustice by the major ethnic groups, the Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa. Ironically, however, these major ethnic nationalities also moan about unfair and unjust treatment, particularly by the Hausa\Fulani, who have ruled the country longer than other tribes.
Therefore, when the renewed agitation for Biafra resurfaced, not a few Nigerians asked why the ghost of self-determination is being summoned again. While many people continue to dismiss the threats by the Europe-based Radio Biafra and its allies in MASSOB and other pro-Biafra groups, others have raised questions on where Igbo elders belong in the new development and whether there are genuine unresolved grievances that encourage the fresh calls for Biafra and how the government should handle the issue, which they describe as “critical, inflammable and sensitive.”
Though the polarisation of the Ohanaeze Ndigbo is said to not be helping the current situation, with the apex umbrella body of all Igbo accused of having lost its bearing, many Ohanaeze Ndigbo leaders have refrained from speaking openly in favour or against Biafra. Despite the difficulty in locating the tilt of the Ohanaeze Ndigbo in the renewed calls for an independent state of Biafra, however, Sunday Tribune findings showed that there were supporters and opponents of the youthful elements in the highly-respected body, with most of the elders, however, advocating peaceful resolution of all perceived grievances and continued understanding among all ethnic groups.
For the elders who believe in one Nigeria and its continued existence, it was quite easy to find a common ground with the rest of the ethnic groups in Southern Nigeria, where the Southern Peoples’ Assembly, an organisation comprising influential individuals across ethnic groups in South-West, South-East and South-South geopolitical zones, has been advocating dialogue, equity and justice within the Nigerian context. It was further gathered that most of the Igbo leaders expressed hopes in the country when a national conference, which was the clamour of most people from the defunct Southern protectorate, was convened by former President Goodluck Jonathan. Though the report of that conference was submitted before Jonathan handed over power, there are fears that the Buhari government, whose party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) opposed the confab, will not implement its far reaching recommendations that addressed issues of inequality and injustice that are at the heart of Biafran agitations.
Prior to the last national conference, the Ikenga of Nnewi and former president-general of Ohanaeze, Chief Dozie Ikedife, stated that he believed the time has come for Nigerians to resolve the issue of Biafra peacefully and amicably, saying: “The Biafrans don’t have a sense of belonging in Nigeria today, which is often expressed as marginalisation, and many other segments of the country are also talking about marginalization and not having a sense of belonging. Let us carve the thing off into manageable sizes, and new patriotism will be generated. Then we shall continue to rebuild whatever country we have with enthusiasm”, he added.
Perhaps, it was against that backdrop that a pro-Biafra group, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), states on its website that “its meeting is lawfully convened under rights granted by the United Nations as contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People 2007.”
“We the Indigenous People of Biafra under Article 4 of the above UN Charter, is free to exercise our right to self-determination, we have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to our internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing our autonomous functions”, the group insisted.
To pro-Biafra groups, the issue of Igbo marginalisation tops the agenda of the cause for persistence calls for secession. For instance, the leader of MASSOB, Uwazuruike, whose activities have pushed up the renewed vigour for self-determination in Igbo land, strongly believes that the Igbo have not got a fair share of the national cake.
Uwazuruike was, in the cause of the struggle for what he described as Igbo emancipation, arrested in 2005 by the authority on treason charges and was released two years later. Between 2000 and now, other pro-Biafra movements have been teaming up for the crusade for self-determination. The first was Biafra Zionist Movement (BZM) led by Benjamin Onwuka, which split from MASSOB. Onwuka, a lawyer by training, declared a new state of independence on November 5, 2012 at an event during which at least 100 of his men were arrested.
In 2014, BZM also announced the rebirth of the Biafran Republic. In a statement released after the incident, the group explained that it had lost faith in the country following years of neglect and continuous killing of the Igbo.
“No
amount of threats or arrests will stop us from pursuing our freedom–
self-determination for Biafrans,” BZM’s national chairman, Edeson Samuel
had said, with Onwuka and 11 others later trying to broadcast live the
rebirth of a new Biafra Republic at the Enugu State Broadcasting Service
State before they were arrested by the police.Today, Onwuka and his men are standing trial at the Federal High Court, Enugu for alleged treasonable offence, with efforts to secure bail for the separatists bail being impossible despite the case being adjourned sine-die. Ironically, all pro-Biafra movements preach non-violence as a means of achieving their goals.
However, an anti-Biafra group in Enugu, known as the “Concerned Citizens of Enugu State (CCES) described the recent protest by the pro-Biafra group in Enugu as “illegal, unacceptable, anti-democratic and an adventure that was capable of undermining the unity of the country and the existing peace and tranquility,” adding in a statement by CCES’ leader, Chief Jeremiah Udeh that it “condemns the unlawful approach of violent protests adopted by the so-called IPOB in promoting its course.”
Though many observers believe that the fresh agitation for Biafra should be addressed peacefully, many others view the plot as the rascality of a few disgruntled elements in the South-East geopolitical zone.
The Senator representing Kaduna Central and popular activist, Shehu Sani, described the agitation for the resurrection of Biafra as a plot to destroy President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration and cause chaos in Nigeria. He said those behind the Biafran campaign were pro-Jonathan government interests who lost out in the last general election and “are now clandestinely plotting to derail the democratic government of Buhari.”
“The new agitation for Biafra is a misguided, ill-conceived and ill-fated course; it is an ill-wind that does no good to those people who are blowing it or to Nigeria as a whole.”
But many political watchers would dismiss Sani’s claim as the usual jaundiced and ethnically motivated reactions by beneficiaries of current lopsided political arrangement to critical issue of national integration. But there are many others who share Sani’s view, who, in fact, only dismissed the resurgent calls for Biafra. But for many others like, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, one of the leaders of the pan-Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, the Biafra issue calls for caution. He urged President Buhari to take note of Biafra and other issues because of “certain effects.”
“There is nothing about separation in the country now and the president should take note of concerning Biafra and certain other issues, because of certain effects. What has been keeping us together up till today? That is why we have been calling for the restructuring of the country and implementation of the recommendations of the Confab reports. If that is done, it will silence the question of separation and all that. It is too late for anybody to talk of separation now, what we need to do is to work on how to consolidate our unity and the only way to do that is what we have been clamouring for- restructuring of the country through the recommendations of the Confab reports,” Adebanjo said.
A popular social media activist, Kayode Ogundamisi, also warned against the clampdown on Radio Biafra, though he described it as an avenue for “those with siege mentality to vent.”
Ogundamisi, in a widely circulated article online, said: “Agitation for the State of Biafra is not a crime, as individuals/groups can advocate for a right to self-determination, what would be wrong is for them to dismember themselves from the territory of the Federal Republic of Nigeria without the consent and agreement of the other federating units. Biafra agitators would have to wage a war against the Federal Republic of Nigeria to do that and would have to be prepared for the consequences (positive or negative) of such action.”
A public commentator, SKG Ogbonna, also warned the agitators, saying “the negative effect of the agitation for Biafra, like the Niger Delta secession declaration, the war itself and the post-war regime on the Igbo as a people on one hand, and the continuous cohesion and knitting of the peoples of Nigeria of today on the other hand, should have relaxed any mania on any possible disintegration of Nigeria.
“The simple answer to the enigmatic question on the division of Nigeria as it stands today is the negative. Is Nigeria to be divided on the bases of geopolitical zones i.e. six countries, or on the ethnic lines i.e. over 350 countries or on religious concentrations i.e. at least three countries? Ogbonna asked.
An Igbo socio-cultural organisation, Igbo Renaissance Movement (IRM), however, proffered a solution to the situation, urging Igbo leaders to approach President Buhari with humility on the marginalisation claim, warning the Igbo to stop building towers of isolation and antagonism.
In a position canvassed by National Coordinator and secretary of the group, Chief Chris Chukwubuzor Azuka and Deacon Kingsley Godwin, the IRM noted that the Igbo race was being haunted by its “blind politics of hate, bitterness, isolation and greed over the years. This is the time for the Igbo to engage in honest self-examination and soul-searching. The important challenge facing Igbo nation now is that of leadership and, therefore, stakeholders must put the house in order for common good”.
In line with the pan-Igbo group’s view, Imo State governor, Rochas Okorocha also recently appealed to politicians from the South-East geopolitical as well as leaders in the zone to join hands with him to support the present administration of President Buhari to enable the people of the zone to be on the same page with the Federal Government in the current political dispensation. Okorocha maintained that President Buhari is fully determined to work with the region, noting that the president has given assurance that the South-East would not be left out of the political and economic equations of Nigeria.
As the clamour by pro-Biafra groups in the eastern part of the country continues, the Presidency has said it has mandated the governors of the region to settle the matter and ensure peace and stability in the region but many questions remain unanswered.
How long will the agitation for Biafra State continue? At the heart of the struggle is the place of Igbo in the power equation. For instance, when will the pendulum of the nation’s presidency swing to the South-East region? Even in the current dispensation, the North is being accused of indiscriminate sharing of the spoils by playing the winner takes all hand. What happens to the South-East, ravaged by erosion, among other environmental challenges? When and how will the Federal Government address these issues and many others, which have largely set the South-East back and especially the perceived hatred for Igbo in a section of the country?
These are the Igbo questions within the Nigerian question, the resolutions of which might engender lasting solution to the crises rocking the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment