There has been a resurgence, in recent times, of clandestine exertions by IPOB (INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF BIAFRA) to recruit foot-soldiers for its illusory cause from among naïve and gullible youths with monetary incentives and promises of utopian privileges. It is even alleged that Oyigbo L.G.A is serving as the devit’s hub for strategic consultations which are patronized by converts that are either politically frustrated or ignorantly traitorous. It is for this reason that the following fundamental and irrefutable facts are herein canvassed and re-emphasized for vivid recollection and constant reflection.
a) Had the defunct Eastern Region of Nigeria, occupying the area from the Atlantic Ocean to the hinterland, and endowed with a rich variety of human and material resources, been inhabited by a homogeneous community;
b) Had the same community suffered collective deprivation, neglect, brutalization, indignities and other forms of injustice under an oppressive, discriminatory and insensitive central government; and
c) Had these victims of such systemic inhuman abuse, contempt and alienation resolved unanimously to extricate themselves from the horrendous slavery through secession to found their independent nation by the name of “BIAFRA”, OR
d) Had the contrivers of Biafra limited its area of jurisdiction strictly within the boundaries of the lingual-cultural Igbo enclave and not extended it arbitrarily to encompass the coastal minority domains against their general wish, will and support,
General Yakubu Gowon would have more wisely opted to preside over negotiations for orderly dissolution of Nigeria than risk the senseless waste of blood and assets to preserve it. The reason was obvious then: secession and disintegration had been the obsessive motive of his mentors ab initio. But the foregoing conditions and scenarious neither existed nor applied in favour of the Igbo who conceived and concocted the Republic of Biafra as well as spearheaded the pursuit. As a consequence, their venture naturally turned out to be a fatal blunder and the object, a mirage or will o’, the wisp! The rationale is simple and instructive.
First, the Region, like Nigeria, comprised a heterogeneous population among which the Igbo ethnic group not only formed a monolithic majority but deported itself with perceptible superciliousness. The members of this predominant tribe controlled the agencies and structures of government together with the resources and revenues. Concordantly, they monopolized no less the function of determining policies, programmes and measures than the mode of regulating priorities and means for dispensing facilities, amenities and services for socio-economic development among the constituencies.
The indigenes of other groups, notably, the Ijaw, Ibibio, Efik, Ogoja, Ogoni and Ikwerre, were treated, not as equal partners and stakeholders, but sufferable minorities and made to play second fiddle. Resentment against their apparently perpetual relegation to an inferior and servile status in the scheme of governance had impelled these minority groups to vehemently agitate for separate regions or states. But the demand, justified as it was, got frozen in the ice-box of the Igbo-dominated N.C.N.C (National Council of Nigeria and Cameroons, later National Council of Nigerian Citizens). Yet the party colluded with the N.P.C (Northern Peoples Congress) to excise the Midwest (later Bendel State, and now Edo and Delta States) from the Western Region in order, osterisibly, to prune Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s empire and incapacitate his fiscal viability. The same reactionary forces beguiled the Willink Commission, through audacious subterfuge and gerrymander, into prescribing, not the creation of Rivers State in conformity with the popular quest, but the establishment of Niger Delta Development Board over which they exercised discretionary authority.
Secondly, the idea of secession might have earned the cosmetic sympathy of some disoriented individuals from the minority groups in both the then power corridors at Enugu and within the ranks of the extinct N.C.N.C. But their number was as negligible as their social clout was insignificant relative to the overwhelming majority among the minority aggregation that had clamoured all along for self determination outside Igbo superintendency. This automatically nullified whatever type of legitimacy they could claim as representatives of the corporate stake inasmuch as they lacked the mandate to do so.
Thirdly, the devolution of the Federation into 12 states in 1967 was strategically intended to preempt and vitiate the contemplated secession. Following, however, the foolhardy declaration of the Biafran Republic, hordes of Niger Deltan youths volunteered for service in the Nigerian Army. I recall the instances when groups of intrepid Ogu youngsters braved the perils of crossing crocodile – ridden creeks, mosquito filled mangrove swamps and the wide Bonny sea to get enlisted in the Nigerian Army Battalion at Bonny. They did so, not because of intrinsic fascination for military career but to seize the opportunity to help annihilate the obnoxious Biafra and secure their emancipation.
Fourthly, the name or description “Republic of Biafra”, derived its pristine relevance from the annulled geo-historic “Bight of Biafra”. which spanned the Atlantic Ocean coastline, stretching from Nigeria to Equatorial Guinea, and constituted the sphere of British consular jurisdiction under John B. Croft in the 19th century. Incidentally, during my sojourn in Equatorial Guinea as Nigerian Consul to the Island of Fernanda Po (now Island of Bioco), I used to patronize a supermarket in Santa Isabel (now Malabo) known as “Bazaar Biafra”. It was, infact, widely claimed there with nostalgic regret, that the freedom fighters had publicly voiced their intention to name the new nation “Republic of Biafra” at independence in October, 1968 had the previous Igbo consul of Nigeria to Fernando Po not acted as agent – preemptor in the matter.
Concomitant with this background was the certain realization on the part of the contrivers of the name that the territory of the emergent littoral states of Delta, Bayelsa, Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Cross River was both identical and symmetrical with the Bight of Biafra, and that the natives therein must be necessarily incorporated into the Republic of Biafra without which the terminology, “Biafra” would be a misnomer at best or chimera at worst. It thus became expedient to entice and recruit collaborators among the misguiched adherents of the N.C.N.C with a view to cultivating their confederacy while neglecting to win the hearts and minds of the greater majority. But the opportunistic and superficial acquiescence of this impotent minority could contribute neither to the legitimization of the enfeebled republic nor the invalidation of the overwhelming loyalty of the minorities to the Federal Government of Nigeria.
Fifthly, the Igbo DNA or psyche is saturated with as much will to thrive, excel and surpass as the passion to overreach, supersede and dominate. The indigenes of Rivers and Bayelsa States in particular should hate to endure the serfdom they had rejected in much the same manner that they should avoid eating their vomit.
In fact, fixation with Port Harcourt and access to the sea stimulate the driving force behind the perseverance with which IPOB is coaxing and cajoling the Riversites to join the movement for Biafra. It is apposite in this context to cite Ken Saro – Wiwa who, in his book, “ON A DARKUNG PLAIN” (1982) quotes the chief spokesman of the Ibo State Union as lamenting thus:
“it would be disastrous to allow any part of Ibo land to be carried into the Rivers State.
Port Harcourt is looked upon to be in the Rivers State …………. all Ibos should oppose any suggestion to include Port Harcourt in any state outside Iboland.”
The fate or misfortune that befell Ogu Community in April, 1968 remains indelibly inscribed in its history and vaguely embedded in the memory of the people. The entire population was forcibly evacuated and transported to an unfamiliar environment in Igbo heart land where hunger, starvation and death took their toll. The process witnessed the gruesome massacre of chiefs and illustrious citizens. This tragic incident gets revived in the mind of the people whenever attempts surface that encourage the resurrection of Biafra.
Let it be stressed, in conclusion, that collaborating with IPOB’s costly ambition to reinvent Biafra is not the best, wisest and most advantageous option for the Niger Deltan, particularly the Riversite, because the Igbo persona, like the proverbial leopard, cannot change its skin. There is no doubt that the prevailing circumstances and direction in Nigeria are fomenting dismay, despair and desperation. Yet recourse to secession at the behest of the Igbo is tantamount to jumping from frypan to fire. Rather, we should harness and devote our intellect, energy and time towards the consummation of the persistent demand for the reconfiguration of Nigeria’s federal structure. The achievement of this goal embodies the sole effective means of deterring and dispersing the colonialistic ambitious of not only the Biafranists but the Fulani adventurists in addition to gaining the greater right of resource control.
Chief, Amb. S. M. K. Taribo Amgbara. JP.
June 4, 2020.
