Achebe: Best Late Than Never

Guardian Newspaper
MONDAY, 12 NOVEMBER 2012 00:00 BY A. B. C. NWOSU OPINION - COLUMNISTS  

I AM of the view that the spate of comments elicited from Nigerians and non-Nigerians by Prof. Chinua Achebe’s latest book: There Was A Country is good for our development as a nation because it provides us again with another opportunity for national exhalation of “bad ethnic breath”, so that reconciliation and genuine inter-ethnic mix can happen.

We had the earlier opportunity provided by the Justice Oputa Truth and Reconciliation Committee with Rev. Father (now Bishop) Matthew Hassan Kukah as secretary. I, therefore, read and retain all the comments and interviews by various individuals on the book as I came across them. It has been such a very long time from that horrid period (over 40 years), and we have moved on with our lives, that we should by now be able to reflect on these terrible events without being terrified of them. Achebe’s book has, therefore, come at the right time.

There is, however, this very curious write-up by Kole Omotosho (who is also a writer) titled: “The Trouble With Achebe” on page 19 of The Vanguard October 26, 2012, in which he quoted and agreed with a belittling review of Achebe’s book by William Wallis of the London Financial Times. Omotosho made much of this review. But what did Omotosho really expect on Biafra from William Wallis and London Financial Times? Achebe in his book had castigated Britain for its well-established anti-Biafra, anti-Igbo role in the entire crisis. Bluntly stated, Ndigbo (not only Achebe) hold the British Government responsible for having masterminded the pogrom and genocide against Biafrans, so to many of us, Mr. Wallis wrote what he had to write. So much for the Financial Times, the British, Mr. Wallis and his review of Achebe’s book.

Omotosho should also have quoted Nadine Gordimer, winner of the Nobel prize in Literature, who said that the book “exceeds all expectation”.

I went back to re-read Omotosho’s well-researched novel “Just Before Dawn” published in 1988 by Spectrum Books Ibadan. In his three-page acknowledgements, he had mentioned two persons who particularly excited my attention. The first person is Anthony Kirk-Greene whose two volumes titled: “Crisis And Conflict In Nigeria: A Documentary Source Book 1966-1970”, are a must-read for anyone truly interested in finding out the truth about the Nigerian crisis of 1966 and the Nigeria-Biafra War 1967-1970. The Kirk-Greene volumes are a repository of first-hand information consisting of over 227 broadcasts, press releases, speeches and official reports.

If, therefore, I had Omotosho’s opportunity to meet with Mr. Kirk-Greene, I would have asked questions on two documents namely: Document No. 104 (p.414) titled by Mr. Kirk-Greene as “Awolowo promises West will secede if East does,” dated May 1, 1967. Also, Document No. 109 (p.425) dated May 26, 1967 and titled: “Hassan Katsina’s interview on the Withdrawal of Northern Troops from the West.” These documents are important because the two subjects, as well as the possibility of a “Southern Solidarity” and Aburi Agreement, were extensively and frankly discussed at the Enugu meeting on Saturday and Sunday May 6 and 7, 1967, between Lt.-Col. Odimegwu Ojukwu (as he was then) and Chief Obafemi Awolowo and their teams. Prior to this meeting, the refusal of Yakubu Gowon to withdraw military personnel from the West and Lagos had been given as the principal reason why Chief Awolowo withdrew from the Ad-Hoc Conference on April 24, 1967.

Another person acknowledged was the Igbo legend, Dr. Okechukwu Ikejiani (Zik’s long-time confidant and Arthur Nwankwo’s maternal uncle). I would be surprised that Omotosho was hosted by Dr. Ikejiani in Nova Scotia Canada, where he lived after the war, without hearing from him his strong views on the 1952 Western Nigeria elections, the January 1966 Military coup, events in Biafra, which he served loyally as ambassador plenipotentiary, and about his struggles over his “abandoned properties” in Port Harcourt and Lagos. These and other subjects are well-covered in Dr. Ikejiani’s 593-page autobiography titled: “The Unrepentant Nationalist” published in 2007.

In his autobiography, Dr. Ikejiani, who lived in Ibadan in 1952, wrote extensively (pp. 197-200) on the “cross-carpet” episode detailing his role and involvement and named NCNC-elected members who he and others had approached on the aegis of the party not to “cross-over” which they did, the next day. However, Dr. Ikejiani in his autobiography, also said that on reflection, he had come to terms with the “cross-carpet” issue, given that Nigeria comprised of ethnic nationalities that had not yet become a nation. Dr. Ikejiani is revered by Ndigbo and his attitude summarises the Igbo position on that 1952 Western Elections affair. It is not a big deal with Ndigbo who have since gone beyond it. But the “crossing over” or “crossing of carpet” did take place and that is all that has been said. Omotosho begs the question by saying Zik would not have done for the West what Awo did for them. May be; may be not. The bottom line is that Ndigbo generally accept the reality that Chief Awolowo needed to govern Western Nigeria at that time in Nigeria’s development as a nation, and that is really it. Achebe did not dwell on this in his latest book, and so Omotosho’s dismissal of Achebe’s reference to Awolowo (on another matter altogether) and describing Chief Awolowo as Achebe’s “bête noir” is petty and is neither here nor there.

Back to Achebe’s latest book, which I believe is a great work that will serve its purpose when the present furore subsides because the facts and truths raised by the book about Nigeria’s history cannot be submerged. They will always rise to the surface. It is a 333-page, four-part (Part I-IV) book covering from Achebe’s childhood to the Civil War and after, with copious footnotes showing Achebe’s sources and interspersed with poems. I am convinced after reading the book that its aim is not to drag Ndigbo and Nigeria backwards but is meant for us to acknowledge certain events of our national history like the Nigeria-Biafra War, pogrom and genocide, and to analyse those horrific events honestly for ourselves and ask questions why those events occurred so as to guard and protect the country from future occurrences. Denying continually that the events happened especially in the face of weighty evidence is sheer hypocrisy and impedes the development of a national ethos. There is an Igbo saying that ‘a child who does not enquire as to what or who killed his father sooner or later suffers the same fate’.

Some of the facts of our nation’s history, which will facilitate a better understanding of Achebe’s book, which devoted over two-thirds to the 1966 crisis and the 1967-1970 war are as follows: Post-Independence Nigeria had lost its salt and violence had erupted resulting in a military coup in January 1966. The coup was nationally acclaimed especially in Western Nigeria and Lagos for obvious reasons. There was a counter-coup in July 1966 followed by well-orchestrated pogrom against Ndigbo, resulting from the reactions of soldiers and others of northern Nigeria origin to the January 1966 coup, which later came to be regarded as an “Igbo coup”. Following the pogrom, there was exodus of Ndigbo from other parts of Nigeria to their homeland (Eastern Nigeria), thereby creating serious rehabilitation problems. An ad-hoc national conference was convened by the Federal Government under Gowon to defuse the tensions and insecurity arising from the impasse. Chief Awolowo who had just been released from Calabar Prison led the Yoruba to that Ad-Hoc conference.

(To be concluded)

• Nwosu is a former Minister of Health, Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Guardian Newspaper
TUESDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 2012 00:00 BY A. B. C. NWOSU OPINION - COLUMNISTS  

Continued from yesterday

THE Conference could not continue as a result of the withdrawal of the Eastern Nigeria delegation led by Sir Francis Ibiam because they feared for their safety arising from the continued presence of soldiers of Northern Nigeria origin from the West and Lagos. The impasse and stalemate continued. On Monday May 1, 1967, Chief Obafemi Awolowo delivered an address to the meeting of leaders of thought of the West and Lagos at Agodi Ibadan titled: “The Four Imperatives”. Imperative number three stated that if  “Eastern Nigeria through acts of omission and commission left the federation, the West and Lagos would follow suit.” The exact text of the speech is in “Awo’s Book on the Civil War” (pages 18-24) that is being run now by the Tribune newspaper.

On Saturday, May 6 and Sunday, May 7, 1967, Chief Awolowo led a delegation of the National Conciliation Committee to a meeting in Enugu with Lt.-Col. Chukwuemeka Odimegwu Ojukwu (as he then was) and his team. The meeting failed to achieve its stated objectives. I have read and re-read the transcripts of the Enugu meeting over and over again and cannot find the basis for Odia Ofeimun’s assertion that the Enugu meeting discussed the “creation of states” in Nigeria. I repeat that I find no evidence for this in the transcripts of the meeting as published. Chief Awolowo’s central objective for the Enugu meeting was to persuade Ojukwu for Eastern Nigeria to send representatives to participate at future “National Conciliation” meetings; the Ad-Hoc Conference convened by Yakubu Gowon having become defunct. Also discussed very extensively were the plight of the East as a consequence of the pogrom, the “blockade of Eastern Nigeria”, the Aburi Agreement, “Southern Solidarity, and withdrawal of soldiers of Northern Nigeria origin from the West and Lagos. All these are to be found in the verbatim report of the meeting. Creation of states, which Ofeimun claimed was the “sticking point”, did not feature in the discussions. The parting comment of Chief Awolowo at the Enugu meeting is quoted in full here below: “I am grateful to you (Ojukwu) for the enlightened stand you have taken all along - the stand for freedom and equality for all the regions of the federation. I hope that we shall succeed. May I end by praying the people of Eastern Region that there is no doubt that they are suffering not only for themselves but for others and I do pray that their suffering will not be in vain.”

The stalemate continued and a Sovereign State of Biafra was declared on May 30, 1967 (more than three weeks after the Enugu meeting!). Chief Awolowo became appointed the Federal Commissioner (Minister) of Finance and Vice Chairman of the reconstituted Federal Executive Council, which was inaugurated by then Maj.-Gen. Gowon on June 12, 1967. Nigeria declared war on the fledgling state of Biafra early in July 1967. It was supposed to be a war of national unity, a war “to keep Nigeria one” and was expected to be of a short duration. An operational Code of Conduct had been issued for the Nigerian Army in June 1967 and signed by the Commander-in-Chief, Maj.-Gen. Gowon.

However as it happened, the Nigeria -Biafra war lasted for thirty months in the course of which over two million Biafran children died as a result of a deliberate “Policy of Famine” by the Nigerian government, and defenceless civilians were massacred at Asaba and elsewhere in flagrant disobedience to known codes of conduct of armies, the world over. Many of the starving, kwashiorkor children were evacuated to Gabon and other places and are now permanently “lost” in the Diaspora. Chief Awolowo publicly defended this policy of starvation. When the war ended in January 1970, Maj.-Gen. Gowon magnanimously made his “no victor, no vanquished” and “3Rs” declaration, for which he is still widely applauded by Ndigbo and the world.   However, there were very serious hiccups in the implementation of Gowon’s post-war declaration starting from the obnoxious “twenty pounds” “ex-gratia” award and the infamous “abandoned properties” saga.

Ndigbo have moved on with their lives working on the premise that they have received all the accommodation that existing structures in post-civil war Nigeria would yield to them. They have worked, scratched and clawed their way back into the Nigerian society and economy to the chagrin of all who did not wish them well. Meanwhile, the country drifted from one crisis to another, from one “transition” to another, what Achebe called “Painful Transitions” (p.243), and has not been able to achieve sustained economic growth and development.

Forty years after the end of the Nigeria-Biafra war, the country still struggles along, unable to develop into a well-rounded nation-state that operates a modern economy, and still unable to cater for the basic needs of its over one hundred and fifty million citizens, despite the enormous petrodollars it has earned during this period. Most importantly, the country has failed to define and assert fully what citizenship of Nigeria means in practical terms especially as it relates to the protection of lives and property.

The summary of Achebe’s contention in his latest book is simply that Nigeria can do better and must strive to do better. He proffers solutions and even gives his recipe on how Nigeria can address and improve the present unwholesome state of our politics, our economy and our society. This is what is expected of every patriot. I am convinced that after Achebe’s fiercest critics must have seen and read the book “There Was A Country”, they would find that their abuse has been unfounded and misplaced. It is then that they can participate in a frank national conversation on the book and the redefinition of the future of our country can begin.

To trigger the national conversation, Achebe has said that his latest book seeks to raise questions and perhaps also “cause a few headaches”. For sure, the book has certainly caused many headaches but it is important for the headaches and even belly aches to subside so that the nation can address the questions raised by “There Was A Country”. It is possible that as we examine frankly and dispassionately some of the questions raised, the headaches may develop into severe migraine. It does not matter: the questions need to be raised, addressed and redressed, more than forty years after the end of the civil war, so that Nigeria can move forward faster.

For example, we need to examine whether the January 15, 1966, military coup in Nigeria was truly an “Igbo coup” to foster Igbo domination. Why then did the July 1966 “counter coup” or “revenge coup” degenerate into a pogrom to be followed by the exodus of Ndigbo from all parts of Nigeria? Why did the entire Nigerian populace keep quiet as Ndigbo were hunted down all over Nigeria? Why could the non-Igbo not develop a collective voice against the pogrom? Why was it expedient for soldiers to breach the established military code of conduct in executing the civil war? Why was mass-starvation of innocent Biafran children necessary in a civil war? Was it important to reiterate this wicked policy at international conferences? Why the twenty-pound “ex-gratia” award (irrespective of the amount proven in an account) to further deprive an already devastated people coming out of war from a means of starting all over again? Why were there “abandoned properties” in a country that had become one again? Why the continued marginalisation of Ndigbo as exemplified by its five-states structure compared to the other zones, which have six and seven states? Why can Nigeria not develop to a modern country like the Asian tigers? These are some of the questions arising from There Was A Country that I shall give my views on in an attempt to kick-start a “conversation”.

To be continued.

•Nwosu is a former Minister of Health, Federal Republic of Nigeria.


Guardian Newspaper
WEDNESDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 2012 00:00 BY A. B. C. NWOSU OPINION - COLUMNISTS  

Continued from yesterday.

WITH regard to the January 15, 1966 coup, being branded an “Igbo coup”, Ndigbo do not believe that it was, given (among other considerations) that Zik was president (albeit ceremonial) and Ironsi was the head of the Army. Ndigbo were not marginalised. So what was an “Igbo-coup” in 1966 supposed to achieve for Ndigbo? Dr. Okechukwu Ikejiani was convinced in his autobiography (p.369) that it was not an “Igbo coup”, “even if most of the officers were Igbo and the executors had been misled”. The Special Branch Report on the events of January 15, 1966; Brigadier Hilary Njoku’s blow-by-blow account of how the coup was foiled (“Tragedy Without Heroes”); Peter Enahoro’s 743 page bombshell of a book titled: Then Spoke The Thunder; the published accounts of planners and executors of the coup namely Major Adegboyega (“Why We Struck”), Colonel Gbulie (“Nigeria’s Five Majors”); and now the unpublished manuscript of Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna (revealed in some detail by Odia Ofeimun) have raised very serious doubts reading the branding of the January 15 Coup as an “Igbo coup” for the domination of Nigeria. The facts simply do not add up. I shall stop at this point until the national conversation becomes much more rigorous especially in the scrutiny of the “Ifeajuna Manuscript” (because known facts of the January 15, 1966, suggest that Major Ifeajuna not Major Nzeogwu was the brain behind the coup). For example, the Special Branch Report is explicit that planning of the coup began in August 1965 but Major Nzeogwu joined only in October 1965.

We in the East have been vaguely aware of the “Ifeajuna Manuscript” but did not know that Chief Obafemi Awolowo knew of it and had obtained the actual manuscript (whose major revelation was that the coup-makers intended to make Chief Awolowo Prime Minister) as far back as 1967, as Odia has revealed. Achebe reveals in the latest book that he had read the “Ifeajuna manuscript” having received it from Christopher Okigbo. If only he and Citadel Press had published it!

With this background on the January 15, 1966 coup, why then did the counter-coup, the revenge-coup of July 1966 not stop at “revenge” killings of officers and soldiers of Igbo origin? Achebe had written earlier in one of his published essays and in his latest book that if the “revenge-coup” had stopped with the killing of soldiers and officers, it would have been seen and regarded by Ndigbo as a “horrendous tit-for-tat”, and the exodus of Ndigbo from Nigeria, secession and war would never have taken place. I agree with him. So why then were ordinary civilians killed? Why and how did northern civilians get involved with soldiers in executing the pogrom? Why did the pogrom continue even after the May 29, 1966, broadcast by the military governor of the North; Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s appeal for calm to Easterners in the North on May 30, 1966; and the statement issued by the Supreme Military Council on June 8, 1966? Why did Ndigbo have to flee from Lagos and Ibadan? (I fled the University of Ibadan where I was a scholarship student, our Igbo lecturers, professors and Vice-Chancellor, Prof. K. O. Dike, also fled.). How did matters degenerate to this stage as the Federal Government became impotent to protect Ndigbo as citizens of Nigeria? Why did non-Igbos except for very few (like Wole Soyinka, Tai Solarin notably) lose their voices as they looked on at the horrors? Ndigbo ascribe to this silence and acquiescence of non-Igbos that they (non-Igbos) believed that the pogrom served us Ndigbo right. It was a very bad feeling at the time. This bad feeling needs now to be expurgated. But before then, the feeling like expired breath needs to be exhaled.

Ndigbo in 1967 expected Chief Awolowo to speak out especially on the non-implementation of the Aburi Agreement, which had become the “sticking point” on which secession was declared (“On Aburi We Stand”). At the Enugu meeting on Sunday, May 7,  (p.81) Chief Awolowo had said that:

“With regard to Aburi, I was taken into confidence by the military governor of the West, and I can assure you that he was quite as valiant as he could be in seeking to get the decisions taken at Aburi implemented, and during my recent discussions with Gowon, I told him that it was improper, most improper, for any civil servant to sit in judgment over decisions taken by the highest authority in the land”.

He continued: “I have met a lot of people in Western Nigeria; not one of them suggested that the stand you (Ojukwu) took was wrong. On the contrary, they all supported the stand you took (on Aburi)”.

One can, therefore, imagine how horrified Ndigbo and Biafra were when the Biafra Information network reported that apart from Chief Awolowo’s defence of starvation policy, “Awolowo’s attitude towards ceasefire and peace talks proposals were negative throughout. On arrival in London, he said: “The rebels had committed a crime and must be punished”. These statements were quoted verbatim and are reported by Suzane Cronje on page 115-116 in her book: The World and Nigeria, published in 1972. Ndigbo were perplexed by such a drastic change of attitude and since the end of the war, have asked themselves why it was that these things happened.

Ndigbo do not accept that the “Igbo-coup” (spurious as it was) was reason enough to have produced a pogrom of the ferocity of 1966. We believe that the pogrom resulted from deep-seated hatred of Ndigbo. Havard-educated Prof. Amy Chua formerly of Princeton, now of Yale in her 2003 bestseller titled: World on Fire (346 pages) posits that ethnic cleansing assaults and ethnically targeted confiscations in a country are not spontaneous; they are always sponsored and encouraged by governments. In her analysis, such acts are triggered by circumstances such as the January 15, 1966 coup, fueled by hate-filled demagogues, passionately supported by an aroused and angry “indigenous” majority motivated by tremendous feelings of grievance. So it appeared to have been with Ndigbo who had become labelled in a half-insulting and half-admiring manner as “Jews of Nigeria” in the 1960s. Prof. Chua without being specific to the Igbo (who she discussed severally in her book) lists behaviour, which “indigenous majorities” find objectionable as “acting insularly”, indulging in “conspicuous consumption” and the “flaunting of their ethnic pride”.

Achebe in his latest book has been more specific on the tendencies that Ndigbo must put in check as they interact with the others. Ndigbo have listened to Achebe’s admonitions and advice and are using their tongues to count their teeth, but are insisting that the other micro nations in Nigeria should do likewise, because these other ethnic nationalities also have their own faults. It is when the various ethnic nationalities treat each one another with reciprocal understanding and tolerance that a national character will begin to emerge and the nation will face the 21st Century world with hope and optimism.

As we embark on this new journey, Achebe insists that there are no-go areas like pogrom, mass-killings and ethnic-motivated violence. In his lecture: Africa Is People in Paris 1998 he said, “Our humanity is contingent on the humanity of our fellows. No person or group can be human alone. We rise above the animal together or not at all. If we learned that lesson even this late in the day, we would have taken a truly millennial step forward”. I hope that Achebe’s traducers are listening. We all can begin now to build the new Nigeria of our dreams; a Nigeria that caters for the basic needs of its citizens; a Nigeria that is a pride to Africa and Black peoples of the world, if we mean to do so: This is what Achebe’s book exhorts us to do and I suspect this is why he paid a tribute to Madiba, Nelson Mandela at the end of the book.

Achebe has not changed one bit. In the Trouble With Nigeria published in 1983 (almost 30 years ago), he had said:

“I believe that Nigeria is a nation favoured by Providence. I believe that there are individuals, as well as nations who on account of peculiar gifts and circumstances are commandeered by history to facilitate mankind’s advancement. Nigeria is such a nation. The vast human and material wealth with which she is endowed bestows on her a role in Africa and the world, which no one else can assume or fulfill. The fear that should rightly haunt our leaders (but does not) is that they may have betrayed irretrievably Nigeria’s high destiny.” He then asks and answers for us a very disturbing question: “We have lost the twentieth Century; are we bent on seeing that our children also lose the twenty-first? God forbid!”

In his keynote address at the “Guardian Silver Jubilee” in Lagos on October 9, 2008 titled: “What Is Nigeria To Me?,” Achebe said:

“Being a Nigerian is abysmally frustrating and unbelievably exciting. Nigeria needs help. Nigerians have their work cut out for them - to coax Nigeria along the path of useful creative development. We are the parents of Nigeria, not vice-versa. A generation will come if we do our work patiently and well - and given luck - a generation that will call Nigeria father or mother. But not yet.”

He concludes his thoughts on There Was A Country: as he writes (p.252) “Nigeria’s story has not been, entirely, one long, unrelieved history of despair. Fifty years after independence, Nigerians have begun to ask themselves the hard questions: How can the state of anarchy be reversed? What are the measures that can be taken to prevent corrupt candidates from recycling themselves into positions of leadership? Young Nigerians have often come to me desperately seeking solutions to several conundrums: How do we begin to solve these problems in Nigeria? Where the structures are present but there is no accountability.”

This is Achebe for us, a world-acclaimed writer deeply concerned about his people and his country, Nigeria; an extra-ordinary person, very clear-headed but reticent. He is not given to frivolities. Consistency is his hallmark. Whenever he speaks, he is blunt, fearless and to the point, but always measures his words. At almost 82 years of age, he has spoken again that it is not too late for us to mend our ways and salvage our destiny. So fellow Nigerians, what are we waiting for? Let the national conversation begin on the way to truly transform Nigeria into a great nation.

• Concluded.

• Nwosu is a former Minister of Health, Federal Republic of Nigeria.

The parting comment of Chief Awolowo at the Enugu meeting is quoted in full here below: “I am grateful to you (Ojukwu) for the enlightened stand you have taken all along - the stand for freedom and equality for all the regions of the federation. I hope that we shall succeed. May I end by praying the people of Eastern Region that there is no doubt that they are suffering not only for themselves but for others and I do pray that their suffering will not be in vain.”

SUCH A NICE MAN

At the Enugu meeting on Sunday, May 7,  (p.81) Chief Awolowo had said that:

“With regard to Aburi, I was taken into confidence by the military governor of the West, and I can assure you that he was quite as valiant as he could be in seeking to get the decisions taken at Aburi implemented, and during my recent discussions with Gowon, I told him that it was improper, most improper, for any civil servant to sit in judgment over decisions taken by the highest authority in the land”
He continued: “I have met a lot of people in Western Nigeria; not one of them suggested that the stand you (Ojukwu) took was wrong. On the contrary, they all supported the stand you took (on Aburi)”

SUCH A NICE PEOPLE

On arrival in London, he said: “The rebels had committed a crime and must be punished”. These statements were quoted verbatim and are reported by Suzane Cronje on page 115-116 in her book: The World and Nigeria, published in 1972.

SUCH A MAN

Nigeria can only make progress if we all condemn evil as evil irrespective of whether it affects us personally or not. A country that watched and justified the massacre of over 30,000 innocent civillians albeit in the name of counter coup, will KNOW NO PEACE. Only a FOOL will be surprised that boko haram is currently on rampage. After boko haram, another criminal group will arise and continue the killings under another flimsy excuse

Who cares?
This 2013 almost.
What have we got to show for all the 'facts'?
NOTHING!

If Awolowo actually read the Ifeajuna manuscrpt and still went ahead to encourage Gowon to implement all those policies, it did say something profound about his person and his interests. who knows, maybe thats why he had to take his own life. Pity.

We in the East have been vaguely aware of the “Ifeajuna Manuscript” but did not know that Chief Obafemi Awolowo knew of it and had obtained the actual manuscript (whose major revelation was that the coup-makers intended to make Chief Awolowo Prime Minister) as far back as 1967, as Odia has revealed. Achebe reveals in the latest book that he had read the “Ifeajuna manuscript” having received it from Christopher Okigbo. If only he and Citadel Press had published 

^

It was never an Igbo coup as has always been branded by people that don't know what transpired

WITH regard to the January 15, 1966 coup, being branded an “Igbo coup”, Ndigbo do not believe that it was, given (among other considerations) that Zik was president (albeit ceremonial) and Ironsi was the head of the Army. Ndigbo were not marginalised. So what was an “Igbo-coup” in 1966 supposed to achieve for Ndigbo? Dr. Okechukwu Ikejiani was convinced in his autobiography (p.369) that it was not an “Igbo coup”, “even if most of the officers were Igbo and the executors had been misled”.

Wow!

A B C Nwosu!

What can I say?

I know that Nigeria is jittery about the TRUTH!

The truth cannot die and as far as Nigeria refuses to face the truth,

Biafra will continue to hunt Nigeria.

The parting comment of Chief Awolowo at the Enugu meeting is quoted in full here below: “I am grateful to you (Ojukwu) for the enlightened stand you have taken all along - the stand for freedom and equality for all the regions of the federation. I hope that we shall succeed. May I end by praying the people of Eastern Region that there is no doubt that they are suffering not only for themselves but for others and I do pray that their suffering will not be in vain.”

At the Enugu meeting on Sunday, May 7, (p.81) Chief Awolowo had said that:

“With regard to Aburi, I was taken into confidence by the military governor of the West, and I can assure you that he was quite as valiant as he could be in seeking to get the decisions taken at Aburi implemented, and during my recent discussions with Gowon, I told him that it was improper, most improper, for any civil servant to sit in judgment over decisions taken by the highest authority in the land”
He continued: “I have met a lot of people in Western Nigeria; not one of them suggested that the stand you (Ojukwu) took was wrong. On the contrary, they all supported the stand you took (on Aburi)”

but this from the same man ...

On arrival in London, he said: “The rebels had committed a crime and must be punished”. These statements were quoted verbatim and are reported by Suzane Cronje on page 115-116 in her book: The World and Nigeria, published in 1972.

Have we all see why igbo's refuse to blv in words from this group in today nigeria.
we have tested them and found them deceptive,unstable,unrelaible and dangerouse.

@ tchaik and 9ja_Voice

You both made the same points. However, what isn't clear in that article is what led to the change of Awo's position.

The fact is that Gowon implemented Decree 8 (see excerpts of an article below) to give Ojukwu a considerable majority of what he requested at Aburi. But Ojukwu's insistence on 100% and his intransigence is what led to that change of position. We know that Gowon had the upperhand but he still went to a great extent in accommodating Ojukwu's demands. Now here is the question, what did Gowon not implement that made Ojukwu go to war? Simple, Ojukwu demanded that the Head of State not have the power to appoint or fire the regional governor - in effect, the Eastern region would have been a country within Nigeria and Ojukwu could have been in office for as long as he liked.


"The federal government attempted to implement the Aburi agreement in diluted form by enacting a modified Constitution (Suspension and Modification) decree (decree cool which turned Nigeria into a de facto confederation, but which did not incorporate ALL of the agreements reached at Aburi. Federal civil servants argued that to implement all of the Aburi agreements would lead to the dissolution of the federation. ojukwu declined to accept the initial draft of the decree and insisted on a full and complete implementation of the Aburi accords.

As the weaker party, could ojukwu still have showed greater pragmatism to spare further suffering for his people? Even with its flaws, decree 8 gave him 90% of what he wanted. The U.S. State Department was “impressed by extent to which decree 8 appears to meet many of East's fundamental demands for much greater regional autonomy. While recognizing that it stops short of granting everything ojukwu wants, Dept. considers decree represents genuine effort by FMG and other Mil Govs to implement Aburi agreements and to retain Nigerian unity in form which least objectionable to East…..Consulate Enugu has reported that some prominent and moderate Easterners may incline toward above view".

WINNER TAKES ALL – NIGERIA’S MALAISE

In the “winner takes all” mentality that is so symptomatic of Nigerian politics, ojukwu unrealistically held out for 100% of his demands and in the end, received 0%. His refusal to be tactically flexible by considering options other than secession, placed him and his people in a worse position than they started in. Rather than turning Nigeria into a confederation (which is what decree 8 did), ojukwu’s give no inch stance gave the federal government an opportunity to overrun the Eastern Region, carve the country into several states and concentrate massive powers in the central government."

http://www.pointblanknews.com/Special_Reports/os4390.html

Eziokwu bu ndu...

gregtochi: If Awolowo actually read the Ifeajuna manuscrpt and still went ahead to encourage Gowon to implement all those policies, it did say something profound about his person and his interests. who knows, maybe thats why he had to take his own life. Pity.

He didnt commit suicide!
Don't be a moro.n!!