www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin

The subtitle of today’s piece: “The triumph of General Aguiyi-Ironsi” is borrowed from the assessment of the just concluded national conference by Dr. Orobola Fasehun, formerly of Nigeria’s Foreign Service and the United Nations. Dr. Fasehun said among other things in a recent tele-seminar that the national conference has fully resurrected General Johnson Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi, despite several chest-beating assessments of the conference in glowing terms by many of the delegates, particularly those from the Yoruba region.

The reference to Ironsi’s resurrection is to remind us of the promulgation of Decree 34 by Ironsi during his six-month tenure as military head of state after the first coup d’etat in 1966. Decree 34 dismantled without apology and pretense the federal structure of the country and installed a unitary system that transformed the country into an assemblage of provinces administered by a strong centre. History tells us that Ironsi had to be killed by his fellow soldiers because he re-created Nigeria in an image that was contrary to its original image at independence in 1960. After Ironsi, the federal structure was resuscitated, only for a few years.

As we have observed on this page several times since 2007, Nigeria’s federalism gradually waned under the leadership or sponsorship of military dictatorships, largely between the creation of the first 12 states out of the four regions and the multiplication of the 12 states to the current 36 states, recently slated for increase by the national conference to 54 states. Not even Ironsi had the courage to create 54 provinces during his suicidal declaration of Nigeria as a country of centre-driven provinces. What the national conference had done by resolving to balkanise the country into 54 states is to ensure that the possibility of using regions as federating units or of even having any state or province economically viable enough to pass for a federating unit is made to disappear from the imagination of Nigerians.

It is hard to explain how this kind of resolution could have come from majority of the delegates considered by many observers to be some of the country’s best. Could it be that the conference lacked thinking economists or economic thinkers? By packaging its failure to make a final pronouncement on resource control and revenue allocation on the ground of lack of technical expertise, the conference honestly owned up to significant intellectual deficiency with respect to issues that called for rigorous thinking. Resolving to break the country into 54 provinces or states suggests that most of the delegates (at least 70%) must have made spiritual and psychological commitment to running an administrative federalism that is sustained and can be sustained only through handouts from the central government. It is also surprising that the conference had enough expertise in the house to determine within the short time available to it which areas or communities should be allocated additional 18 states.

Before any delegates or their supporters begin to congratulate themselves for devolving power from the exclusive list to the states, let us briefly compare the number of functions on the conference’s exclusive list to what exists in the 1999 Constitution put together at the instance of military dictators. There are 68 items on the exclusive list in the 1999 Constitution, with the first being “Accounts of the Government of the Federation, and of offices, courts, and authorities thereof, including audit of those accounts” and the sixty-eighth item being “Any matter incidental or supplementary to any matter mentioned elsewhere in this list.” On the recommendations of the conference, there are now 62 items on the legislative exclusive list. In reality, the central government has not lost any power. Some of the powers in the current constitution have been combined, thus giving the impression that the number of items of the proposed exclusive list is smaller than what obtains in the 1999 Constitution. For example, items 6, 15, and 24 were combined into one item, items 9, 18, 30 and 42 in the current constitution were merged while items 23 and 28 were combined into one item, to give a total of 62 items on the conference’s new exclusive list.

With respect to functions proposed by the conference for the states, there are basically five new additions to the pre-conference concurrent list: police (by states that choose to have such law enforcement agency in addition to the overarching one provided by the central government), railway, prison, public holiday, and creation of local government. This is despite the fact that the conference still endorsed continuation of current allocation of petro-naira to local government as third tier of government. These additions to state powers are already being danced about by several delegates around Yoruba cities, but before the Yoruba get misled, the provision to neutralize the power of states to use these new powers and those on the old concurrent list has been added to each item on the concurrent list. Invocation of the principle of central legislative supremacy: “The National Assembly shall have power to make laws for the Federation or any part thereof with respect” to anything under the sun indicates that no state has any freedom to do anything that is not supported by the central legislative assembly, which has the power to legislate in whichever direction it chooses.

Despite ample references to the Basic Laws of Germany by the conference, there is very little evidence that the conference borrows good models from the concept of sharing power and governance in the context of Germany’s combination of ethnic and territorial federalism, just as there is no such evidence with respect to the practice of territorial federalism in the United States. Just as the framers of the 1999 Constitution intended, a country of 36 (planning to morph into 54) mini states that beg for handouts from the central government cannot be given substantial powers that are not to be regulated or checked by an overbearing central government that has control over resource mobilization and allocation. Having resolved to increase the number of provinces a la Ironsi from 36 to 54, it would certainly not make sense for the conference to fail to add the principle of federal legislative supremacy to every item on the concurrent list. Without doubt, some position papers sent by groups of Yoruba professionals that called for just two forms of power: exclusive and residual lists must have been thrown into the trash can before commencement of negotiations at the conference.

Even if the national assembly, the only institution that can transform the resolutions of the conference to constitutional provisions (with the conference having already dismissed the option of a referendum and barring the invocation of Nigeria’s latest code word for decree, Doctrine of Necessity), accepts the resolutions of the conference hook, line, and sinker, Nigeria will remain as far from federalism as it was before the latest of its national conferences. In other words, it is not yet Uhuru for apostles of federalism and advocates of a sovereign national conference. In all, the recently concluded national conference has not been a waste of time, as many of its critics would like citizens to believe. On the whole, the delegates have thrown substantial light on what needs to be done to improve governance in a polity designed for administrative federalism. But the conference has clearly shown the nation what not to do, if it is to fulfill the desire of many of its citizens and nationalities to create a functional and sustainable federal system of government.(To be continued)

Ropo Sekoni

After studying Nigeria political history and development, I get angry each and any time I hear the Name Gen. Aguiyi Ironsi. What many of us particularly those from the East don't know is his unitary systme of govt which concentrated too much powers at the center instead of allowing the existing regional structure which he met in power.

Aguiyi ironsi gave that model and the delegates played to it.
Why creating more states when we have non-working state right now? This is the most useless recommendation by the conference.

size38: After studying Nigeria political history and development, I get angry each and any time I hear the Name Gen. Aguiyi Ironsi. What many of us particularly those from the East don't know is his unitary systme of govt which concentrated too much powers at the center instead of allowing the existing regional structure which he met in power.

The man died years ago, is it his ghost that is preventing them from changing the system?
Absolute nonsense!

d confan made some laudable achievements, bt d idea to balkanize d existing states into 54 federating units cannot b rationalized under any guise.

Suffice to say dat only d east deserves a state just 4 equity purposes and nothing else.

9ja still trying to get it right since 1960 n failing to learn frm other countries.

Collynzo16:
The man died years ago, is it his ghost that is preventing them from changing the system?
Absolute nonsense!

^^^You have to understand the pathological hatred that bastard you quoted has for Igbos! He will NEVER have anything complimentary to say about ANYTHING concerning Ndigbo, and always jumps at the opportunity to lay the blame of everything bad thing happening in this country at our doorstep! He claims to be from the Niger Delta!

@Original post: I for one didn't know what all the excitement was about after the conference concluded; with Nigerians Jumping for joy, and the delegates slapping themselves on the back for a job well done! It's still a continuation of the status-quo.......just old wine in new skin! I have come to the realization that all the Nigerian elite (Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa/Fulani, Ijaw, etc-etc-etc) have this solidarity between them to keep Nigeria going 'as is', to protect their cosy lifestyle, investments, landed property in Abuja and Lagos, and keep their stolen wealth for their kids and generations yet unborn; also, the southern Nigerian elite -for whatever reason - don't have the balls to question the criminal advantages the core muslim north acquired for themselves during the military regime!

For us all to be truly free in this country, we first have to clean the political Augean Stables in our respective regions/zones and get rid of the bloody saboteurs within, before anything can be done on a national level!

IGBOSON1:


^^^You have to understand the pathological hatred that bastard you quoted has for Igbos! He will NEVER have anything complimentary to say about ANYTHING concerning Ndigbo, and always jumps at the opportunity to lay the blame of everything bad thing happening in this country at our doorstep! He claims to be from the Niger Delta!

@Original post: I for one didn't know what all the excitement was about after the conference concluded; with Nigerians Jumping for joy, and the delegates slapping themselves on the back for a job well done! It's still a continuation of the status-quo.......just old wine in new skin! I have come to the realization that all the Nigerian elite (Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa/Fulani, Ijaw, etc-etc-etc) have this solidarity between them to keep Nigeria going 'as is', to protect their cosy lifestyle, investments, landed property in Abuja and Lagos, and keep their stolen wealth for their kids and generations yet unborn; also, the southern Nigerian elite -for whatever reason - don't have the balls to question the criminal advantages the core muslim north acquired for themselves during the military regime!

For us all to be truly free in this country, we first have to clean the political Augean Stables in our respective regions/zones and get rid of the bloody saboteurs within, before anything can be done on a national level!

No true Niger Deltan or sincere Nigerian would not be miffed by that act of Aguyi Ironsi which ruined and finally buried whatever hope was left for Nigeria to be run on equity and fiscal justice. In addition the same Ironsi crushed Isaac Boro's attempt to pull the Niger Delta out of the fraud called Nigeria. So which sincere Niger Deltan who has taken his time to study how Nigeria got into this mess would you expect to love Ironsi other than the very young and ignorant ones?
If the oil struck in 1956 were to have been found in Ironsi's father's compound in Umuahia would he have dismantled federalism or even tampered with that federal constitution at all?

Deadlytruth:


No true Niger Deltan or sincere Nigerian would not be miffed by that act of Aguyi Ironsi which ruined and finally buried whatever hope was left for Nigeria to be run on equity and fiscal justice. In addition the same Ironsi crushed Isaac Boro's attempt to pull the Niger Delta out of the fraud called Nigeria. So which sincere Niger Deltan who has taken his time to study how Nigeria got into this mess would you expect to love Ironsi other than the very young and ignorant ones?
If the oil struck in 1956 were to have been found in Ironsi's father's compound in Umuahia would he have dismantled federalism or even tampered with that federal constitution at all?

Only a complete ignoramus will believe that Ironsi destroyed regionalism. Only a complete morrron will go further to say that Ironsi introduced unitary rule. The history books are there for all to read and know what happened, but people like talking for the sake of talking. How could Ironsi destroy the regions when the regions where still in existence the day he died? Did he come back the dead to destroy regionalism? Decree 34 only centralised Government, by and large, the decree left the 4 regions with most of their powers including fiscal responsibility. People fail to realise that Military rule is not civilian rule. If Ironsi had not promulgated decree 34, the 4 Governirs he appointed would have been even more powerful than himself. All military regimes function on a central system. It was Gowon who came in and announced on the 27th of May 1967 (49 years ago today) the abolishment of the 4 regions, the creation of 12 states and the removal of fiscal responsibility and resouce control. This was the direct cause of Ojukwu declaring Biafra in response. Gowon introduced the the unitary system.

The hypocrisy of the whole thing is that those who accuse Ironsi of introducing the unitary system are the same people fighting for it to remain forever. One of the main reasons the North gave for overthrowing and killing Ironsi was the unitary system. Today, that same North will rather commit suicide than have regionalism returned. Another hypocrisy is that Ojukwu went to Aburi and negotiated a confederation which is even better than federalism. But when Gowon broke this agreement and introduced unitary rule, the SW which now likes to present its self as a champion of federalism, fully supported Gowon and his northern goons to introduce unitary rule. Today, they are shouting they want regionalism back which even surprises me. Hypocrisy everwhere.

Deadlytruth:


No true Niger Deltan or sincere Nigerian would not be miffed by that act of Aguyi Ironsi which ruined and finally buried whatever hope was left for Nigeria to be run on equity and fiscal justice. In addition the same Ironsi crushed Isaac Boro's attempt to pull the Niger Delta out of the fraud called Nigeria.

Don't decieve anybody with this Isaac Adaka Boro story. Boro only wanted to declare his Ijaw nation free. He had no interest in other tribed in the so called Niger-Delta. Also, Boro was a bit of a rascal. How can someone be declaring a separate country with no mandate? Even from his own people? Any body can go and get a group of men, arm them, the make any declaration. If it was that easy, Nnamdi Kanu would have done the same a long time ago. The worst thing about Isaac Boro was that he later made a complete U-turn and fought for 'one Nigeria'. He paid for it with his life

gidgiddy:

Only a complete ignoramus will believe that Ironsi destroyed regionalism. Only a complete morrron will go further to say that Ironsi introduced unitary rule. The history books are there for all to read and know what happened, but people like talking for the sake of talking. How could Ironsi destroy the regions when the regions where still in existence the day he died? Did he come back the dead to destroy regionalism? Decree 34 only centralised Government, by and large, the decree left the 4 regions with most of their powers including fiscal responsibility. People fail to realise that Military rule is not civilian rule. If Ironsi had not promulgated decree 34, the 4 Governirs he appointed would have been even more powerful than himself. All military regimes function on a central system. It was Gowon who came in and announced on the 27th of May 1967 (49 years ago today) the abolishment of the 4 regions, the creation of 12 states and the removal of fiscal responsibility and resouce control. This was the direct cause of Ojukwu declaring Biafra in response. Gowon introduced the the unitary system.

The hypocrisy of the whole thing is that those who accuse Ironsi of introducing the unitary system are the same people fighting for it to remain forever. One of the main reasons the North gave for overthrowing and killing Ironsi was the unitary system. Today, that same North will rather commit suicide than have regionalism returned. Another hypocrisy is that Ojukwu went to Aburi and negotiated a confederation which is even better than federalism. But when Gowon broke this agreement and introduced unitary rule, the SW which now likes to present its self as a champion of federalism, fully supported Gowon and his northern goons to introduce unitary rule. Today, they are shouting they want regionalism back which even surprises me. Hypocrisy everwhere.

First and foremost it takes a confused person inspired by hate to quickly assume that whoever criticizes Ironsi for his rash and misguided decision must be from the SW as if only SW has the skills to analyse issues.

Secondly, it takes a victim of moronic plague stung by the bug of blind tribal loyalty to openly and shamelessly still be suggesting that Ironsi's did not destroy federalism with his Unification Decree which was the official statement that first altered the status quo in post-independence Nigeria. If he did not destroy federalism, then what else did he mean by his decree which he himself with his own mouth named and titled "Unification Decree"? Was Ironsi that daft and uneducated not to know what unification meant in the dictionary?
A man who in his Unification Decree removed the term "federal" from Nigeria's official name to become merely "Republic of Nigeria" from the former "Federal Republic of Nigeria" obviously meant that the federating units had ceased to exist in functionality terms.
The mere fact that the regions were still in "existence" before Ironsi died does not automatically imply federalism because the essential difference between unitary system and federalism is not the total absence of regions or units but the level to which the units or regions are given power over their own affairs without control from the centre. The fact that UK is said to practice unitary system does not mean that UK is not at all divided into smaller units like Sheffield, Nothingham, etc. In Nigeria our regions had more powers devolved on them than the centre before Ironsi came. But Ironsi altered this structure and ordered all "regions" to report to him at the centre. In which true federalism do regions report to the centre? Any system in which the regions report to the centre is nothing but unitary system. It takes an uneducated literate to think otherwise. If Ironsi did not mean to alter the status quo, then why could he not conduct elections or at least allow the deputies of the two slain premiers to be immediately sworn in to replace them in the affected regions but chose to quickly replace them with military officers whom he asked to be reporting to him henceforth?
If Ironsi's Unification Decree did not substantially alter the status of the regions, then why were there spontaneous violent riots in the North targeted at Southerners at the announcing of the decree?
As one of the ingredients of his evil unification decree he unified the civil service. Now, if not for ulterior motive, what concerned the status quo ante of the civil service with the issue of Awo vs Akintola and Nzeogwu coup which all led to the prevailing political anarchy situation that Ironsi claimed to have come to arrest? If not for a fraudulent motive, why alter the constitution towards a unified civil service when the general public did not demand a constitution review?
If Ironsi's Decree 34 did not dismantle the regions, then why did Gowon find it necessary to issue his own Decree 56 which reversed Ironsi's Decree 34?
With Decree 56 Gowon almost 100% restored the regions and governed like that for good 11 months before he was forced to start adjusting in order to strategize against Ojukwu's threat. At least we can say Gowon changed back to quasi-unitary due to war expediency. Which expediency made Ironsi change to unitary? Some people ignorantly claim knowledge of history when they are yet to read it into the finest details.
Aburi Accord was nothing but a hypocritic pack of afterthoughts because virtually all the demands Ojukwu made there for a very loose federation had already been captured in the memorandum of Anthony Enahoro in the 1957 London conference. Enahoro's demands were delineation of regions along tribal compatibility lines, inclusion of secession clause (confederacy) in order to instill in our future leaders the fear of the consequences of misgovernance, etc; but Azikiwe and his fellow Igbos rejected Enahoro's proposal, called him a tribalist and declared that the unity of "One-Nigeria" was non-negotiable and that federalism or confederacy would elevate tribalism over nationalism. Therefore only a hypocrite would expect all other tribes in Nigeria to support Zik's tribe in their secession bid or quest for a confederacy after they themselves had deprecated all attempts to include it in the constitution earlier on and even labelled as tribalists those who first so demanded. They themselves agitated for "one Nigeria".... a euphemism for unitary system. But after the rest of Nigeria decided to key into their one Nigeria slogan and become "nationalists" like them, the same people started asking for a return to the same true federalism which they said would encourage tribalism. Hypocrites! We can't be subject to their whims and caprices. Must we always dance to their selfish tunes?

gidgiddy:


Don't decieve anybody with this Isaac Adaka Boro story. Boro only wanted to declare his Ijaw nation free. He had no interest in other tribed in the so called Niger-Delta. Also, Boro was a bit of a rascal. How can someone be declaring a separate country with no mandate? Even from his own people? Any body can go and get a group of men, arm them, the make any declaration. If it was that easy, Nnamdi Kanu would have done the same a long time ago. The worst thing about Isaac Boro was that he later made a complete U-turn and fought for 'one Nigeria'. He paid for it with his life

Your position woefully fails the test of holistic analysis. If you people knew Boro was only interested in Ijaw Nation, then why hold him back? After all every other tribe in the Niger Delta would have taken. clues from him and equally declared their separate republics thus this fraud called "One Nigeria" would have long ended thus the eventual bloody Civil War would have been avoided.
Your claim that Isaac Boro was wrong to have declared a separate country without mandate is very hypocritical in light of your very support for Ojukwu who equally had no such mandate to declare Biafra and include ijaw land in the Biafra map. Which Ijaws gave him the mandate to include them in it? If Ijaws gave him the mandate, then why did they later open up the coast for the federal forces to penetrate the Eastern Region and extricate them (Ijaws) from Biafra soldiers? Which state assembly or regional assembly in Nigeria today has given any mandate to the Niger Delta Avengers current secessionist agitations which you Igbos currently support wholeheartedly and cheerfully? Who in the Midwest Assembly back then gave Ojukwu the mandate to invade the region to "free" them from Hausa-Fulani "domination"?
The only legal means to declaring a separate country is to approach the UN for referendum. Anything short of that is violence and illegal, and does not require any mandate as there are no defined procedures for violent approach to secession. Why could Ojukwu, with all his level of education, not set the better example by approaching the UN for referendum if he knew Boro's violent approach was wrong?
Why would Isaac Boro not have made a U-turn to fight for one Nigeria and against Biafra when it was "one-Nigeria" that set him free thus preventing the carrying out of the death sentence slammed on him by two Biafrans? Only a monumental ingrate and big fool would come out of prison and join those who jailed him to fight against those who released him.
Isaac Boro's case is far better than Ojukwu's case because he alone was killed (whether by Biafra or Federal forces) without any innocent Ijaw civilian being killed along with him. But the "One-Nigeria" which Ojukwu tried to preserve by crushing Boro's Republic later came and wiped out millions of innocent Ojukwu's own brothers right before his very eyes. You can't deny that it would definitely have been better if "One Nigeria" had only killed Ojukwu and spared those million innocent Biafrans.
And mind you that for the fact that Ojukwu and Ironsi had already sentence Boro to death before God intervened Ojukwu was therefore as guilty of Boro's death as whoever actually later killed him. If ironsi had not been toppled, he and Ojukwu would have executed Boro. So why are you gloating as if Boro's murder justified Ojukwu's earlier wickedness towards him?

Deadlytruth:


Your position woefully fails the test of holistic analysis. If you people knew Boro was only interested in Ijaw Nation, then why hold him back? After all every other tribe in the Niger Delta would have taken. clues from him and equally declared their separate republics thus this fraud called "One Nigeria" would have long ended thus the eventual bloody Civil War would have been avoided.
Your claim that Isaac Boro was wrong to have declared a separate country without mandate is very hypocritical in light of your very support for Ojukwu who equally had no such mandate to declare Biafra and include ijaw land in the Biafra map. Which Ijaws gave him the mandate to include them in it? If Ijaws gave him the mandate, then why did they later open up the coast for the federal forces to penetrate the Eastern Region and extricate them (Ijaws) from Biafra soldiers? Which state assembly or regional assembly in Nigeria today has given any mandate to the Niger Delta Avengers current secessionist agitations which you Igbos currently support wholeheartedly and cheerfully? Who in the Midwest Assembly back then gave Ojukwu the mandate to invade the region to "free" them from Hausa-Fulani "domination"?
The only legal means to declaring a separate country is to approach the UN for referendum. Anything short of that is violence and illegal, and does not require any mandate as there are no defined procedures for violent approach to secession. Why could Ojukwu, with all his level of education, not set the better example by approaching the UN for referendum if he knew Boro's violent approach was wrong?
Why would Isaac Boro not have made a U-turn to fight for one Nigeria and against Biafra when it was "one-Nigeria" that set him free thus preventing the carrying out of the death sentence slammed on him by two Biafrans? Only a monumental ingrate and big fool would come out of prison and join those who jailed him to fight against those who released him.
Isaac Boro's case is far better than Ojukwu's case because he alone was killed (whether by Biafra or Federal forces) without any innocent Ijaw civilian being killed along with him. But the "One-Nigeria" which Ojukwu tried to preserve by crushing Boro's Republic later came and wiped out millions of innocent Ojukwu's own brothers right before his very eyes. You can't deny that it would definitely have been better if "One Nigeria" had only killed Ojukwu and spared those million innocent Biafrans.
And mind you that for the fact that Ojukwu and Ironsi had already sentence Boro to death before God intervened Ojukwu was therefore as guilty of Boro's death as whoever actually later killed him. If ironsi had not been toppled, he and Ojukwu would have executed Boro. So why are you gloating as if Boro's murder justified Ojukwu's earlier wickedness towards him?

I'm an Igbo born son and a strong supporter of Biafra. I support any indigenous people in Nigeria to declare their own independent country, with other tribes or alone. What I do not support is rascality, which is what Boro did. Before anyone makes a unilateral declaration of independence, he must seek and recieve the mandate of the people to do so. Take Ojukwu for example. Before Ojukwu declared Biafra, he sought the mandate of the Eastern Nigerian Consultative assembly. This was the assembly of all the Chiefs and representatives of the 20 provinces that made up the old Eastern region. They met and deliberated in Enugu on the 28th of May 1967. The next day, they voted and mandated Ojukwu to declare the Eastern Region a separate nation. Ojukwu declared Biafra the very next day. When the war began, some of the minorities changed tune for reasons best known to them. Another example is IPOB which mainly wants a referendum held in much of what is the SS/SE area. This again is a form of seeking the people's mandate. But for Boro to just come out of nowhere, then go to some village square with armed men to read a declaration is just silly. That's why Boro's rebellion did not even last 2 weeks, this proves he did not have the support of the people. If Boro had been fighting for a referendum or if he had recieved a sort of mandate from Ijaw Elders and Chiefs to declare a Niger-Delta Republic, then all well and good, but he acted on his own. Less than 18 months later, he was fighting for 'one Nigeria'. Ojukwu was justified in invading the mid-west because the mid-west was still part of Nigeria. Nigeria invaded Biafra, Ojukwu then invaded Nigeria, case closed. If we were all justified to do what Boro did, I would have gone to my village, bought a couple of dane guns from hunters, gathered some guys and declared the entire Igbos as Republic of Biafra. But we all know this would be foolish. I admire Boro for the spirit of what he did but I don't admire the silly way he went about it with no mandate. One last thing, it is not a must that a people must have a "UN monitored" referendum. Scotland did not need the UN when it had its own referendum to in 2014. What is important is that a referendum is held, UN present or not. Lord Lugard did not go to the UN when he was creating Nigeria

gidgiddy:


I'm an Igbo born son and a strong supporter of Biafra. I support any indigenous people in Nigeria to declare their own independent country, with other tribes or alone. What I do not support is rascality, which is what Boro did. Before anyone makes a unilateral declaration of independence, he must seek and recieve the mandate of the people to do so. Take Ojukwu for example. Before Ojukwu declared Biafra, he sought the mandate of the Eastern Nigerian Consultative assembly. This was the assembly of all the Chiefs and representatives of the 20 provinces that made up the old Eastern region. They met and deliberated in Enugu on the 28th of May 1967. The next day, they voted and mandated Ojukwu to declare the Eastern Region a separate nation. Ojukwu declared Biafra the very next day. When the war began, some of the minorities changed tune for reasons best known to them. Another example is IPOB which mainly wants a referendum held in much of what is the SS/SE area. This again is a form of seeking the people's mandate. But for Boro to just come out of nowhere, then go to some village square with armed men to read a declaration is just silly. That's why Boro's rebellion did not even last 2 weeks, this proves he did not have the support of the people. If Boro had been fighting for a referendum or if he had recieved a sort of mandate from Ijaw Elders and Chiefs to declare a Niger-Delta Republic, then all well and good, but he acted on his own. Less than 18 months later, he was fighting for 'one Nigeria'. Ojukwu was justified in invading the mid-west because the mid-west was still part of Nigeria. Nigeria invaded Biafra, Ojukwu then invaded Nigeria, case closed. If we were all justified to do what Boro did, I would have gone to my village, bought a couple of dane guns from hunters, gathered some guys and declared the entire Igbos as Republic of Biafra. But we all know this would be foolish. I admire Boro for the spirit of what he did but I don't admire the silly way he went about it with no mandate. One last thing, it is not a must that a people must have a "UN monitored" referendum. Scotland did not need the UN when it had its own referendum to in 2014. What is important is that a referendum is held, UN present or not. Lord Lugard did not go to the UN when he was creating Nigeria

I am a Midwesterner and I detest Igbo invasion of the Midwest. You can't claim that Nigeria invaded Biafra because Bifra was not a country but the Eastern region of Nigeria according to Nigeria's constitution. Rather than attack the Midwest Ojukwu should have attacked the Arewa (Northern Region) which attacked his Eastern Region.
Nigeria only went to curb an uprising by some rascals in the Eastern Region of its territory. In the eyes of the Nigerian government what Ojukwu too did was like gathering armed men in a market square and reading a declaration act. Ijaws did not ever initially support Biafra as Ojukwu did not consult their elders. How many Ijaws were members of the Eastern Regional assembly which purportedly gave Ojukwu the mandate? The Eastern Region was subject to Nigerian constitution and therefore had no right to seek secession on its own unilaterally. Such was an affront on the Nigerian government under which Ojukwu was.
You keep trying to create the impression that Boro did not follow the right channel, but you refuse to tell me why you Igbos are currently in support of Niger Delta Avengers who are doing it exactly the same way as the Isaac Boro you claim did not do it correctly. Can't you smell your people's double standards in all these?
If what Isaac Boro did was of no significance due to your alleged lack of mandate, then why did Ojukwu and Ironsi go as far as getting him sentenced to death for an insignificant gathering in a village square?
What stopped Ojukwu and Ironsi from inviting Boro for a dialogue? After all Ironsi was busy releasing Northern prisoners, having dialogue with them for peace, releasing or at least massaging the egos of the likes of Nzeogwu, Ifeajuna, Anuforo, etc who even carried out a more rascally coup without any mandate from anyone and thereby putting the whole nation in a turmoil far greater than Isaac Boro's.
For the Scotland referendum, the people followed the legal peaceful channel within UK. Why did Ojukwu choose the illegal violent channel? If Ojukwu did not need UN the Isaac Boro too did not need an oficiall mandate from any assembly.

Deadlytruth:


I am a Midwesterner and I detest Igbo invasion of the Midwest. You can't claim that Nigeria invaded Biafra because Bifra was not a country but the Eastern region of Nigeria according to Nigeria's constitution. Rather than attack the Midwest Ojukwu should have attacked the Arewa (Northern Region) which attacked his Eastern Region.
Nigeria only went to curb an uprising by some rascals in the Eastern Region of its territory. In the eyes of the Nigerian government what Ojukwu too did was like gathering armed men in a market square and reading a declaration act. Ijaws did not ever initially support Biafra as Ojukwu did not consult their elders. How many Ijaws were members of the Eastern Regional assembly which purportedly gave Ojukwu the mandate? The Eastern Region was subject to Nigerian constitution and therefore had no right to seek secession on its own unilaterally. Such was an affront on the Nigerian government under which Ojukwu was.
You keep trying to create the impression that Boro did not follow the right channel, but you refuse to tell me why you Igbos are currently in support of Niger Delta Avengers who are doing it exactly the same way as the Isaac Boro you claim did not do it correctly. Can't you smell your people's double standards in all these?
If what Isaac Boro did was of no significance due to your alleged lack of mandate, then why did Ojukwu and Ironsi go as far as getting him sentenced to death for an insignificant gathering in a village square?
What stopped Ojukwu and Ironsi from inviting Boro for a dialogue? After all Ironsi was busy releasing Northern prisoners, having dialogue with them for peace, releasing or at least massaging the egos of the likes of Nzeogwu, Ifeajuna, Anuforo, etc who even carried out a more rascally coup without any mandate from anyone and thereby putting the whole nation in a turmoil far greater than Isaac Boro's.
For the Scotland referendum, the people followed the legal peaceful channel within UK. Why did Ojukwu choose the illegal violent channel? If Ojukwu did not need UN the Isaac Boro too did not need an oficiall mandate from any assembly.

You are talking like someone who reasons through his anus. Nigerian history is there for all to read. We do not live in the dark ages any more. This is the age of the Internet where so much information is available at the click of a button. Google the history of Nigeria, particularly the period of 1966 to 67 to be better informed rather than ague from a point of ignorance. You said you are a mid-westerner? Mid-westerner, Niger-Delta,SS,SE,Nigerian are all fictitious names imposed on the indigenous people of the land by military leaders from Lord Lugard to Abacha. When do the people get to choose their own names? So Biafra which was created by the mandate of the representatives and Chiefs of the 20 provinces that made up the old Eastern region is not a country but Nigeria that a British thief called Lugard shot,killed, beat up and forced together people to create is what is a country to you? I laugh in Igbo. Nigeria is an illegal creation of the White man. Gowon and his Northern Government were directing the war from Lagos same as Ojukwu was leading the Biafran offensive from Enugu. So it is ok for Gowon to go through other regions to attack the Biafran capital of Enugu but illegal for Ojukwu to go through the mid-west to attack Lagos? This was Biafran/Nigerian war not East/North war. Ojukwu had every right to attack anywhere in Nigeria same as Gowon had the right to attack Biafra. As I said before, the difference between Boro and Ojukwu is that Ojukwu had a mandate to declare Biafra while Boro and Lord Lugard had no mandate to declare anything. Boro's sense of self determination is admirable but his method was foolish. Lugard on the other hand saw west Africa as nothing but a money making machine. To the best of knowledge, the Niger Delta Avengers are fighting for resouce contol and true federalism, not a separate country. If they are fighting for a separate country, they must tell us who constitutes this country and how they intend to seek the consent of those included. I've heard about Niger Delta Republic but till today, I have not seen any agitation for it. We have all seen massive protests for Biafra on the streets. Scotland agitated for its independence. The British Government in London did not respond with "we are one Britain", "you have no right to secede", "we must be one", "we will use military force" . Instead, Britain being the civilised country it is, aknowledged the right of the Scottish people to self determination and granted them a referendum. This is the same Britain that created Nigeria. But in Nigeria, the Nigerian Government will never aknowledge the right of anyone to self determination. How can a Yoruba or Hausa man be telling an Igbo man like me that we are "one Nigeria" when I have historical connection to both of them? Isn't that laughable? Nigeria is what it has always been since Lugard created it in 1914, an instrument of oppression and exploitation and the fallout of this is the violence and agitation for freedom we see today.

gidgiddy:


You are talking like someone who reasons through his anus. Nigerian history is there for all to read. We do not live in the dark ages any more. This is the age of the Internet where so much information is available at the click of a button. Google the history of Nigeria, particularly the period of 1966 to 67 to be better informed rather than ague from a point of ignorance. You said you are a mid-westerner? Mid-westerner, Niger-Delta,SS,SE,Nigerian are all fictitious names imposed on the indigenous people of the land by military leaders from Lord Lugard to Abacha. When do the people get to choose their own names? So Biafra which was created by the mandate of the representatives and Chiefs of the 20 provinces that made up the old Eastern region is not a country but Nigeria that a British thief called Lugard shot,killed, beat up and forced together people to create is what is a country to you? I laugh in Igbo. Nigeria is an illegal creation of the White man. Gowon and his Northern Government were directing the war from Lagos same as Ojukwu was leading the Biafran offensive from Enugu. So it is ok for Gowon to go through other regions to attack the Biafran capital of Enugu but illegal for Ojukwu to go through the mid-west to attack Lagos? This was Biafran/Nigerian war not East/North war. Ojukwu had every right to attack anywhere in Nigeria same as Gowon had the right to attack Biafra. As I said before, the difference between Boro and Ojukwu is that Ojukwu had a mandate to declare Biafra while Boro and Lord Lugard had no mandate to declare anything. Boro's sense of self determination is admirable but his method was foolish. Lugard on the other hand saw west Africa as nothing but a money making machine. To the best of knowledge, the Niger Delta Avengers are fighting for resouce contol and true federalism, not a separate country. If they are fighting for a separate country, they must tell us who constitutes this country and how they intend to seek the consent of those included. I've heard about Niger Delta Republic but till today, I have not seen any agitation for it. We have all seen massive protests for Biafra on the streets. Scotland agitated for its independence. The British Government in London did not respond with "we are one Britain", "you have no right to secede", "we must be one", "we will use military force" . Instead, Britain being the civilised country it is, aknowledged the right of the Scottish people to self determination and granted them a referendum. This is the same Britain that created Nigeria. But in Nigeria, the Nigerian Government will never aknowledge the right of anyone to self determination. How can a Yoruba or Hausa man be telling an Igbo man like me that we are "one Nigeria" when I have historical connection to both of them? Isn't that laughable? Nigeria is what it has always been since Lugard created it in 1914, an instrument of oppression and exploitation and the fallout of this is the violence and agitation for freedom we see today.

You speak like someone who reasons through his penis or vagina as if logical analysis is like sexual intercourse where only emotions and orgasms rule rather than reason.
Was it not Igbos, led by Zik, that invented the "one Nigeria" slogan by which they implied that Hausa, Yoruba, Igbos and everyone else were one? Was it not Igbos that labelled themselves as nationalists and others as tribalists when other tribes suggested creating allowance for secession in the constitution?
Was it not Igbos that rejected the proposed secession clause in our independence constitution and declared that Nigeria's unity was non-negotiable? You claim to have google where you read Nigeria's history at a button click but you have never come across on google where Zik and his fellow Igbos danced to the tune of the British to successfully resist the inclusion of the secession clause at the drafting stage of Nigeria's independence constitution in 1957. Very pitiful "enlightenment"!
How can a tribe which made secession illegal in our constitution now turn around to be accusing other tribes of preventing them from seceding when those other tribes are only following that constitution in which that single tribe criminalized secession with British assistance? This is awkward and preposterous. It only means that single tribe is highly unprincipled, unstable and erratic. It does not make sense at all. In fact it was pure buffonery for a tribe to have been so "optimistic" that a country of strange bedfellows would be so well governed that the inclusion of secession clause in that country's constitution was not necessary. Such a daft and dull mindset! Britain has provision for such referendum in their constitution and that was why it was possible for the Scotland referendum to happen. If it were not in their constitution they would never have allowed it. But Igbos prevented such provision from ever entering into our constitution and now they want to reap the fruits from the tree they prevented from germinating. How sensible and possible? If you want referendum on secession you first ask your legislators to sponsor a bill for that. The only referendum our constitution permits is for the creation of states and regions, and such was invoked to create Midwestern Region by the natives themselves and not the white man as you allege. Ignoramus! The Midwest people were already a pre-colonial country called Benin Kingdom before the coming of the white man. They only re-named the kingdom Midwest due to certain political expediency within Nigeria. That the white man created your own Eastern Region and enclave of Biafra (a name taken from Cameroon) does not automatically mean Midwest was also created by the white man. The white man bundled us with Yorubas but we reversed it by getting our kingdom back as Midwest Region with its pre-colonial boundaries intact. So don't compare Midwest with your undefined Biafra Region.
You obviously are completely ignorant of the difference between MEND and NDA. It was MEND that sought federalism and resource control. NDA is seeking Niger Delta Republic and they released their currency just yesterday with the picture of this very Isaac Boro on it. Check the thread on the front page of this very NL site and you'll see it. If Boro did not get their approval and mandate to declare Niger Delta Republic, then why have they decided to so honour him now?
You have nothing to say. Biafra prevented Isaac Boro's secession and Isaac Boro prevented theirs. Equation balanced.
Those who deny others freedom (by any excuse) do not deserve it themselves..........Abraham Lincoln.