Re: Obasanjo's Obsession With Biafra
By
Professor Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe once described President Obasanjo's many pronouncements on Biafra war as obsessive. For some time, Ndigbo issues have dominated political discourse, a situation created by Ohanaeze Ndigbo's statements and activities. We all have our obsession, it is part of human nature , therefore both Ohanaeze and other commentators including our learned Professor suffer from the same 'sickness.' One thing we cannot take from President Obasanjo is his frank sometime brutal, some time tactless, but truthful comments on national issues. The other time, he referred to Lagos as jungle city and most people took umbrage for it. But we all know that that description of Lagos is apt, in fact it is flattery, if there is something worst than that, it should have been used.
The Biafra war will continue to loom large in the consciousness of Mr. President because the war made him what he is today. He is a soldier, a writer, a politician, a statesman and an international figure, all because of the Biafra war. He distinguished himself in that war, when he headed the 3rd Marine Commando, he had the singular honour of receiving the instrument of surrender from General Effiong. His account of that war in his 'My Command' has made him a writer. He became the Head of State and now Mr. President, both, he owes to the war and his unflinching belief in the unity of Nigeria.
Other former Heads of State and war veterans may not be inclined to comment on Biafra for some reason but may share the sentiments of Mr.
President. It may be personal style. Therefore, there is no issue in being obsessed with certain issue but it becomes one if Mr. President's comments are laced
with falsification of true event or invention tinged with malice; it is doubtful if Professor Ekwe can accuse President Obasanjo of deliberate falsification of
history. What are the grievances of the learned Professor against a soldier- politician? It is quite in order if Mr. President described the civil war as one
fought for resource control. The President has only broadened our understanding of resource control especially in Nigerian parlance. I cannot see why Professor
Ekwe should make it an issue because I am in agreement with Mr. President. Biafra sought to control their own affairs therefore resource control goes beyond oil,
it involves controlling one's own institutions, directing one's affairs and managing one's human and material endowments. I would like to ask why Igbo declared
secession? Therefore, the war was declared, waged, lost and won over resource control.
There are two levels of interpreting Mr. President's comment on Biafra as a war of resource control vindicates his position in two ways. The first is that Biafra sought to control its affairs, this is true, a plain fact as borne by history of circumstances leading to the war and its aftermath. The second is resource control in terms of the oil in the minorities' land. By declaring Biafra Republic, by fiat the Igbo took over the oil fields and oil installations in non-Igbo areas of Rivers. The unfortunate thing is that those who have the oil did not declare secession but their Igbo neighbours, who wanted to control and manage those resources on behalf of Easterners or Biafrans. After all, Ojukwu collected oil royalty from Shell and other oil companies operating in his short-lived Biafra.
But our Professor went on to say that the war did not end with the capture of oil fields and installations and the federal troops embarked on deliberate ethnic cleansing by pushing the war into the heartland of Igbo. This to him, shows that the war was to exterminate the Igbo race and not for resource control. It is obvious from reading available materials on the war, that Biafra even after the capture of their economic backbone, did not sue for truce or showed any sign of discontinuing the war. Biafra only gave up when it had no means to continue the war.
If the rebels had surrendered with the fall of Rivers State, perhaps, the nation would have been saved the agony of prolonged war. The question put to Mr. President, should have been put to the leadership of Biafra.
However, to forestall possible repeat of 'bloodbath, 'Professor Ekwe has recommended those responsible for the war or bloodbath or both to account. I quite agree with him on that score but the snag is, who are to account? Those who started the war or those who responded to the aggression. Ndigbo declared secession and war on Nigeria and till date the Igbos have not brought those responsible to account for their action. It would be interesting if Igbo tries their leaders for forcing them into ill-prepared, unnecessary and costly misadventure that was Biafra.
Professor Ekwe condemned other constituent nations and nationalities of the federation for their 'scant opposition to wanton destruction of Igbo lives 30 years ago." This is rather unfortunate coming from a man who claims to be an authority on Biafra. The opposition from other nationalities was more than that. Papa Awo led a delegation to Ojukwu to warn him to desist from secession and the former Governor of Mid-Western region was part of it. Soyinka was very vocal in his condemnation of war and the Federal Government, he was incarcerated for his anti-war activities. Late Tai Solarin mobilized support for war refugees and so on. It is not only on record that the learned professor opposed Biafra. I am not aware of Igbo intellectuals or politicians who opposed the war and publicly declared so. With due respect, Igbo intellectuals were too carried away by possible prospects in the nascent republic. I would like to be educated on who the anti-war activists (of Igbo Origin) in Biafra are. Late Ken-Saro Wiwa in his 'On a Darkling Plain' narrates how University of Nsukka became the hotbed of secession. He had to leave when Nsukka campus and town became unsafe for him because of his anti-Biafra war pronouncement. Even the nascent Biafra could not accommodate non-Igbo soldiers who gave them initial successes. Victor Banjo and co were labelled saboteurs and killed. The researcher on Biafra cannot claim ignorance of these facts.
Professor Ekwe tried to explain our backwardness due to the failure of Biafran misadventure. According to him, we are backward in all areas of human development in Nigeria and by extension Africa, because we did not allow Biafra to secede. In public office, Igbo have not fared better than their counterparts. They have contributed their quota to the sorry present that is Nigeria. All the shout of marginalisation is bunkum because every part of the country is so marginalised when you look at human development. In addition, there is no position of authority in social, economic and political sphere that has not been occupied by an Igbo. There are minorities who have not occupied any significant political office in Nigeria. This is a fact of history. Igbo was the first Governor-General and first President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria - Late Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe. The first military Head of State was late Gen. Aguiyi Ironsi, an Igbo. The first army chief of staff was Igbo. The first Vice-President was Dr. Alex Ekwueme, an Igbo. Not to mention many positions of authority they now hold in the present democracy. Can we say the same of many minorities in the country? Enough of this shouting match in the village square. If we delve into history of the defunct Eastern region, the minorities there did not have a fair deal from the Igbo, who marginalised them. It was so brazen that it aroused their resentment. If they had been fair to them, perhaps their Biafra might not have been short-lived.
Curiously, Professor Ekwe reversed his reason for Mr. President's obsession and substituted it with 2003 election. However, he conceded that Mr. President has not signified his intention to run. Although he is convinced that President Obasanjo is whipping up anti-Igbo sentiment for that purpose. I cannot say much on that. But Ohanaeze lacks political fact, talks too much and is insensitive to the political atmosphere of the time. Here is a president who has just spent half his term and a socio-cultural group challenged, him, vowed to unseat him. Do you expect him to fold his arms? He is not so politically naive as people take him. If Ohanaeze wants to play marginalisation politics, he is ready, if it wants to whip up war sentiments, he is a veteran of same war. However, he does not need anti-Igbo sentiment to win the presidential project because such is a misnormer. We do not want an Igbo president, we want a Nigerian president coming from one of the many nationalities that make up the country. An Igbo president invokes a president that will rule solely in favour of Ndigbo.
In any case, what can such a person do? He cannot control the juggernaut that is bureaucratic, neither can he populate the National Assembly with Ndigbo alone. It is as if Ohanaeze is bent on forcing an Igbo on the nation as president. This feeling should not be allowed to sink into our consciousness because it can be counter-productive. Someone should please tell Ohanaeze that no section, no ethnic group, can win a presidential election without active and massive support of other nationalities. To think it can ride on marginalisation to presidency is simplistic. They should drop the toga of Igbo president, it will alienate most Nigerians. Ohanaeze should heed the wise counsel of Dr. Maduekwe.
Yet the obsession of Igbo on Biafra should begin to wane. They are too sensitive to it. All the writers that lambasted Mr. President are Igbo as mentioned by Professor Ekwe in his article. You cannot accuse the President of the crime you are also guilty of.
December 2001