Often times people give so many interpretations to Ojukwu actions and his ultimate desire to establish a new country for the Eastern region and possibly a new one for the Midwest, while absorbing Anioma into Biafra, for that was the ultimate goal.

Often time, these interpretations are made through a bias prism and innate Igbophobia from Nigerians.

On that note, I find Nyerere's non bias, humanist and pan African take on Biafra so
refreshing and interesting.

The Declaration of Independence by Biafra on the 30th May, 1967 came after two military coups d'etat - in January and July 1966 - and two major pogroms against the Ibo (Igbo) people. These pogroms, which also took place in 1966, resulted in the death of about 30,000 men, women, and children, and made two million people flee from their homes in other parts of Nigeria to the tribal homeland in Eastern Nigeria. These events have been interspersed and followed by official discussions about a new constitution for Nigeria, and also by continued personal attacks on individual Ibos who have remained outside the Eastern Region. The basic case for Biafra' s secession from the Nigerian Federation is that people from the Eastern Region can no longer feel save in other parts of the Federation. They are not accepted as citizens of Nigeria by the other citizens of Nigeria. Not only is it impossible for Ibos and people of related tribes to live in assurance of personal safety if they work outside Biafra; it would also be impossible for any representative of these people to move freely and without fear in any other part of the Federation of Nigeria.

These fears are genuine and deep-seated; nor can anyone say they are groundless. The rights and wrongs of the original coup d'etat, the rights and wrongs of the attitudes taken by different groups in the politics of pre and post coup Nigeria, are all irrelevant to the fear which Ibo people feel. And the people of Eastern Nigeria can point to too many bereaved homes, too many maimed people, for anyone to deny the reasonable grounds for their fears. It is these fears which are the root cause both for the secession, and for the fanaticism with which the people of Eastern Nigeria have defended the country they declared to be independent. Fears such as now exist among the Ibo people do not disappear because someone says they are unjustified, of says that the rest of Nigeria does not want to exterminate Ibos (Igbos). Such words have even less effect when the speakers have made no attempt to bring the perpetrators of crimes to justice, and when troops under the control of the Federal Nigerian authorities continue to ill-treat, or allow others to ill- treat, any Ibo who come within their power. The only way to remove the Easterners' fear is for the Nigerian authorities to accept its existence, to acknowledge the reason for it, and then to talk on terms of equality with those involved about the way forward. When people have reason to be afraid you cannot reassure them through the barrel of a gun; your only hope is to talk as one man to another, or as one group to another. It is no use the Federal authorities demanding that the persecuted should come as a supplicant for mercy, by first renouncing their secession from the political unit. For the secession was declared because the Ibo (Igbo) people felt it to be their only defence against extermination. In their minds, therefore, a demand that should renounce secession before talks begun, is equivalent to a demand that they should announce their willingness to be exterminated. If they are wrong in this belief they have to be convinced. And they can only be convinced by talks leading to new institutional arrangements which take account of their fears.

I AM HERE TO *LIKE* NDIGBO COMMENTS

The people of Biafra have announced their willingness to talk to the Nigerian authorities without any conditions. They cannot renounce their secession before talks, but they do not demand that Nigerians should recognize it; they ask for talks without conditions. But the Federal Authorities have refused to talk except on the basis of Biafran surrender. And as the Biafrans believe they will be massacred if they surrender, the Federal authorities are really refusing to talk at all. For human beings do not voluntarily walk towards what they believe to be certain death. The federal Government argues that in demanding the renunciation of secession before talks, and indeed in its entire "police action", it is defending the territorial integrity of Nigeria. On this ground it argues also that it has a right to demand support from all other governments, and especially other African governments. For every state, and every state authority, has a duty to defend the sovereignty and integrity of its nation; this is a central part of the function of a national government. Africa accepts the validity of this point, for African states have more reason than most to fear the effects of disintegration. It is on these grounds that Africa has watched the massacre of tens of thousands of peoples, has watched millions being made into refugees, watched the employment of mercenaries by both sides in the current civil war, and has accepted repeated rebuffs of its offers to help by mediation or conciliation.

But for how long should this continue?
Africa fought for freedom on the ground of
individual liberty and equality, and on the
grounds that every people must have the
right to determine for themselves the
conditions under which they would be
governed. We accept the boundaries we
inherited from colonialism, and within
them we each worked out for ourselves
the constitutional and other arrangements
which we felt to be appropriate to the
most essential function of a state - that is
the safeguarding of life and liberty for its
inhabitants.
When the Federation of Nigeria became
independent in 1960, the same policy was
adopted by all its peoples. They accepted
the Federal structure which had been
established under the colonial system,
and declared their intention to work
together. Indeed, the Southern States of
the Federation - which includes Biafra -
delayed their own demands for
independence until the North was ready to
join them. At the insistence of the North
also, the original suggestion of the
National Council for Nigeria and the
Cameroons (the political party which had
its centre in the South) that Nigeria
should be broken up into many small
states with a strong centre, was
abandoned. The South accepted a
structure which virtually allowed the more
populous North to dominate the rest.
But the constitution of the Federation of
Nigeria was broken in January, 1966, by
the first military coup. All hope of its
resuscitation was removed by the second
coup, and even more by the pogroms of
September and October, 1966. These
events altered the whole basis of the
society; after them it was impossible for
political and economic relations between
the different parts of the old Federation to
be restored. They meant that Nigerian
unity could only be salvaged from the
wreck of inter-tribal violence and fear by
a constitution drawn up in the light of
what had happened, and which was
generally acceptable to all major elements
of the society under the new
circumstances. A completely new start
had to be made, for the basis of the state
had been dissolved in the complete
break-down of law and order, and the
inter-tribal violence which existed.
The necessity for a new start by
agreement was accepted by a Conference
of military leaders from all parts of the
Federation, in Aburi, Ghana, in January,
1967. There is a certain difference of
opinion about some of the things which
were agreed at the Conference. But there
is no dispute about the fact that everyone
joined in a Declaration renouncing the use
of force as a means of settling the crisis
in Nigeria. Nor does anyone dispute that it
was agreed that a new constitution was to
be worked out by agreement, and that in
the meantime there would be a repeal of
all military decrees issued since January,
1966 which reduced the powers of the
Region. There was also agreement about
rehabilitation payments for those who had
been forced to flee from their homes, and
about members of the armed forces being
stationed in their home Regions.



The Aburi Conference could have provided
the new start which was necessary if the
unity of Nigeria was to be maintained. But
before the end of the same month,
General Gowon was restating his
commitment to the creation of new states,
and his determination to oppose any form
of confederation. And on the last day of
January, the Federal military authorities
were already giving administrative reasons
for delay in the implementation of the
Agreements reached at Aburi. It was the
middle of March before a constitutional
decree was issued which was supposed
to regularize the position in accordance
with with the decisions taken there. But
unfortunately this Decree also included a
new clause - which had not been agreed
- and which gave the Federal authorities a
reserve power over the Regions, and thus
completely nullified the whole operation.
Nor had any payment been made by the
Federal Government to back up the
monetary commitment for rehabilitation
which it had accepted in the Ghana
meeting.
In short, the necessity for an arrangement
which would take account of the fears
created during 1966 was accepted at
Aburi, and renounced thereafter by the
Federal authorities. Yet they now claim to
be defending the integrity of the country
in which they failed to guarantee the most
elementary safety of the twelve million
peoples of Eastern Nigeria. These people
had been massacred in other parts of
Nigeria without the Federal authorities
apparently having either the will or the
power to protect them. When they
retreated to their homeland they were
expected to accept the domination of the
same people who instigated, or allowed,
their persecution in the country which
they are being told is theirs - i.e., Nigeria.
Surely, when a whole people is rejected
by the majority of the state in which they
live, they must have the life to life under a
different kind of arrangement which does
secure their existence. States are made to
serve people; governments are
established to protect the citizens of a
state against external enemies and
internal wrong-doers.

It is on those grounds that people surrender their right and power of self- defence to the Government of the state in which they live. But when the machinery of the state, and the powers of the Government, are turned against a whole group of the society on the grounds of racial, tribal, or religious prejudice, then the victims have the right to take back the powers they have surrendered, and to defend themselves. Foe while people have a duty to defend the integrity of their state, and even to die in its defence, this duty stems from the fact that it is theirs, and that it is important to their wellbeing and to the future of their children. When the state ceases to stand for honor, the protection, and the wellbeing of all its citizens, then it is no longer the instrument of those it has rejected. In such a case the people have the right to create anotherinstrument for their protection - in other words, to create another state. This right cannot be abrogated by constitutions, nor by outsiders. The basis of statehood, and of unity can only be general acceptance by the participants. When more than twelve million people have become convinced that they are rejected, and that there is no longer any basis for unity between them and other groups of people, then that unity has ceased to exist. You cannot kill thousands of people, and keep killing more, in the name of unity. There is no unity between the dead and those who killed them; and there is no unity in slavery or domination. Africa needs unity. We need unity over the whole continent, and in the meantime we need unity within the existing states of Africa. It is a tragedy when we experience a setback to our goal of unity. But the basis of our need for unity, and the reason for our desire for it, is the greater wellbeing, and the greater security, of the people of Africa. Unity by conquest is impossible. It is not practicable; and even if military might could force the acceptance of a particular authority, the purpose of unity would have been destroyed. For the purpose of unity, its justification, is the service of all the peoples who are united together. The general consent of all the people involved is the only basis on which unity in Africa can be maintained or extended.

he fact that the Federation of Nigeria was created in 1960 with the consent of all the people does not alter that fact. That Federation, and the basis of consent, has since been destroyed. Nor is this the first time the world has seen a reduction in political unity. We have seen the creation of the Mali Federation, the creation of a Union between Egypt and Syria, and the establishment of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. And we have also seen the dissolution of all these attempts at unity, and the consequent recognition of the separate nations which were once involved. The world has also seen the creation of India and Pakistan out of what was once the Indian Empire. We have all recognized both of these nation states and done our best to help them deal with the millions of people made homeless by the conflict and division. None of these things meant that we have liked these examples of great disunity. They meant that we recognize that in all these cases the people are unwilling to remain in one political unit. Tanzania recognizes Senegal, Mali, Egypt, Syria, Malawi, Zambia, Pakistan and Egypt. What right have we to refuse, in the name of unity, to recognize the fact of Biafra? For years the people of that state struggled to maintain unity with the other peoples in the Federation of Nigeria; even after the pogroms of 1966 they tried to work out a new form of unity which would guarantee their safety; they have demonstrated by ten months of bitter fighting that they have decided upon a new political organization and are willing to defend it.

The world has taken it upon itself to utter
many ill-informed criticisms of the Jews
of Europe for going to their deaths
without any concerted struggle. But out of
sympathy for the sufferings of this people,
and in recognition of the world's failure to
take action at the appropriate time, the
United Nations established the State of
Israel in territory which belonged to the
Arabs for thousands of years. It was felt
that only by the establishment of a Jewish
homeland, and a Jewish national state,
could Jews be expected to live in the
world under conditions of human security.
Tanzania has recognized the State of
Israel and will continue to do so because
of its belief that every people must have
some place in the world where they are
not liable to be rejected by their fellow
citizens. But the Biafrans have now
suffered the same kind of rejection within
their state that the Jews of Germany
experienced. Fortunately they already had
a homeland. They have retreated to it for
their own protection, and for the same
reason - after all other efforts had failed -
they have declared it to be an
independent state.
In the light of these circumstances,
Tanzania feels obliged to recognize the
setback to African unity which has
occurred. We therefore recognize the
State of Biafra as an independent
sovereign entity, and as a member of the
community of nations. Only by this act of
recognition can we remain true to our
conviction that the purpose of society,
and of all political organization, is the
service of Man."

http://www.usafricaonline.com/nyererebiafra.html

Now this is quite rich. I will be back to highlight and dissect some very crucial parts of this Julius take on Biafra.

Wonderful write up but 2 key things are critically missing :

1. He brushed over the incidence of Jan 1966 as if it was a none issue. Maybe, he did not understand the import of that singular action that spiralled out of control because he is not a Nigerian.

2. He also failed to disclose his blossoming friendship with Zik in this write up, in the spirit of objectivity. There is no way most of what he wrote would not have been based on hearsays of Zik. It took several diplomatic trips for Zik to convince Nyerere to recognise the new country and it was even done on friendship basis. He would have been fair enough to tell us in his write up that Zik was his very good friend.

pazienza:

The rights and wrongs of the original
coup d'etat, the rights and wrongs of the
attitudes taken by different groups in the
politics of pre and post coup Nigeria, are
all irrelevant to the fear which Ibo people
feel.

He brushed over the coup d'etat that killed the leaders of other regions as well as high ranking Army officers of other regions, as if it was a none issue and emphasised the fear of the Ibos.

Action always begat a reaction.

Genesis always precedes revelation.

What a fair comment.

Ok?

superstar1:
Wonderful write up but 2 key things are critically missing :

1. He brushed over the incidence of Jan 1966 as if it was a none issue. Maybe, he did not understand the import of that singular action that spiralled out of control because he is not a Nigerian.

2. He also failed to disclose his blossoming friendship with Zik in this write up, in the spirit of objectivity. There is no way most of what he wrote would not have been based on hearsays of Zik. It took several diplomatic trips for Zik to convince Nyerere to recognise the new country and it was even done on friendship basis. He would have been fair enough to tell us in his write up that Zik was his very good friend.

Zik was Zik of Africa, he was friends with virtually all who mattered in Africa, yet not all in Africa approved of Biafra struggle, and Biafra did send delegates to those nations like they did to Tanzania.

You failed to attack Nyerere points, you rather chose to attack the person, a clear admission of intellectual laziness.

pazienza:


Zik was Zik of Africa, he was friends with virtually all who mattered in Africa, yet not all in Africa approved of Biafra struggle, and Biafra did sent delegates to those nations like they did to Tanzania.

You failed to attack Nyerere points, you rather chose to attack the person, a clear admission of intellectual laziness.

Pazienza let us discuss the topic objectively because it is a lovely write up that is intellectually sound enough for informative discussion.

Drop all your grandstanding and let us discuss this objectively.

If you want the thread to go down the hill, we shall gladly oblige you. I can't shout.

"Surely, when a whole people is rejected
by the majority of the state in which they
live, they must have the life to life under a
different kind of arrangement which does
secure their existence. States are made to
serve people; governments are
established to protect the citizens of a
state against external enemies and
internal wrong-doers".


Now this is the point only an unbiased mind can see. The last part of that quote is quite powerful.

pazienza:
Such words have even less
effect when the speakers have made no
attempt to bring the perpetrators of crimes
to justice,

Were the perpetrators of the 1st coup brought to justice?

Was that fair on others.

superstar1:


Pazienza let us discuss the topic objectively because it is a lovely write up that is intellectually sound enough for informative discussion.

Drop all your grandstanding and let us discuss this objectively.

If you want the thread to go down the hill, we shall gladly oblige you. I can't shout.

Ok. Now can you pick parts of this Nyerere's master piece and dissect. leave Nyerere as person alone, let's evaluate and dissect his write up.

superstar1:


Were the perpetrators of the 1st coup brought to justice?

Was that fair on others.

They were being detained, pending judgment of their case, would you have rather preferred jungle justice?

Can you authoritatively prove that Nzeogwu and co were acting on behalf of the Igbo nation?

pazienza:
The
federal Government argues that in
demanding the renunciation of secession
before talks, and indeed in its entire
"police action", it is defending the
territorial integrity of Nigeria. On this
ground it argues also that it has a right to
demand support from all other
governments, and especially other African
governments. For every state, and every
state authority, has a duty to defend the
sovereignty and integrity of its nation; this
is a central part of the function of a
national government.
Africa accepts the validity of this point, for
African states have more reason than
most to fear the effects of disintegration.
.

Ironsi stood on this ground to crush the declaration of Republic of Niger Delta by Adaka Isaac Boro.

Shagari stood on same to chase the Chadian rebels back into Chad.

GEJ is standing on the same premise to crush. Book Baram's declared Caliphate.

Gowon simply just did same.

pazienza:


They were being detained, pending judgment of their case, would you have rather preferred jungle justice?

Can you authoritatively prove that Nzeogwu and co were acting on behalf of the Igbo nation?

How many days does it take to court martial coup plotters? They were being detained in prisons in Eastern Region, where it was recorded those guys leave the prison at will for partying.

It must definitely be a day-prison facility.

Gideon Orkar and his boys were executed under how many days? Vatsa was sentenced under how many days? Dimka was arraigned and sentenced under how many days. The prosecution of soldiers that led the mutiny in Bornu and refused to fight the BH war took how many months to be completed?

Ironsi had 6months to serve justice and he never did.

I cannot authoritatively state that they acted on behalf of Igbo nation, but some facts are on ground that gave credence to it.

It was coup that was led by majorly Igbo officers. Fact.

It was a coup that the none of political gladiators of Igbo extraction was not killed. Fact.

It was also a known fact that just one Igbo officer was killed, which was out of vendetta. Fact.

The beneficiary of the coup was an igbo officer. Fact.

Regional powers were cancelled and power was centralised just for igbo to "dominate" others, like they used to say. Not a fact but is well founded.

One question that I always ask these brutes is this, Did Nzeogwu and his colleagues go to my grandfather or great granddad that He and his friends were about to do a coup d'Etat? Now did the killing of Mr. Bello and Mr. Balewa warrant the brutal massacre of MORE THAN THIRTY THOUSAND people, even CHILDREN who at best had no iota of idea of what just happened and were busy make ends meet? I need an Honest answer to these questions. If you truly wanted to avenge the deaths of those trouble makers (clearly they were not nationalists, they were tribal warriors, and I spit on them, spit on Ojukwu if you so wish, it is you mouth) you would have gone for their killers! not innocent women and kids, to show how inhumane Yoruba and their masters are. Well, I know very well that it has not always been like this, this inhumanity was learned by you guys from the Brits, which we all know carried on exactly were the Romans left, almost all British customs we see today have connections to ancient Rome, so I am not surprised. How on earth can anybody justify the massacre of women and kids? What do they have to do with the coup?

superstar1:


Ironsi stood on this ground to crush the declaration of Republic of Niger Delta by Adaka Isaac Boro.

Shagari stood on same to chase the Chadian rebels back into Chad.

GEJ is standing on the same premise to crush. Book Baram's declared Caliphate.

Gowon simply just did same.

Adaka Boro was not a leader of Ijaw people, he held no elective post or appointment post. How would Ironsi be sure he was actually speaking for Ijaw people, when we had Ijaw leaders in Enugu singing a different song. The only way would have been by Referendum to determine where the people stood, a similar thing was done for Bamenda in the Eastern region.

Moreover, you don't see Ndiigbo defending Ironsi actions of trying to uphold the fallacy of one Nigeria, no Igbo man defends his pre civil war actions, non of them were to our benefit.


No one down East is applauding GEJ for fighting to preserve the North, the General consensus is that he should let the North divide to allow the East freedom.

Can we say the same of the support Gowon and Awo got from their people, in their effort to bring back the East?

On a side note, the Biafran scenario is entirely different from the Boro and GEJ case. No body was killing the Ijaws, the North( Boko haram) were killing themselves,where as Biafrans were being killed by Nigerians with tact support/ in action of the Northern controlled central government.

There is simply no basis for the comparison of the those three events.

pazienza:


Zik was Zik of Africa, he was friends with virtually all who mattered in Africa, yet not all in Africa approved of Biafra struggle, and Biafra did sent delegates to those nations like they did to Tanzania.

You failed to attack Nyerere points, you rather chose to attack the person, a clear admission of intellectual laziness.

what more do you want me to type,you said everything,the hatred for the Igbos will never end until we are out,tell it to okorocha and Ngige.

superstar1:


How many days does it take to court martial coup plotters? They were being detained in prisons in Eastern Region, where it was recorded those guys leave the prison at will for partying.

It must definitely be a day-prison facility.

Gideon Orkar and his boys were executed under how many days? Vatsa was sentenced under how many days? Dimka was arraigned and sentenced under how many days. The prosecution of soldiers that led the mutiny in Bornu and refused to fight the BH war took how many months to be completed?

Ironsi had 6months to serve justice and he never did.

I cannot authoritatively state that they acted on behalf Igbo nation, but some facts are on ground that gave credence to it.

It was coup that was led by majorly Igbo officers. Fact.

It was a coup that the none of political gladiators of Igbo extraction was not killed. Fact.

It was also a known fact that just one Igbo officer was killed, which was out of vendetta. Fact.

The beneficiary of the coup was an igbo officer. Fact.

Regional powers were cancelled and power was centralised just for igbo to "dominate" others, like they used to say. Not a fact but is well founded.

Laziness is truly a very,very bad habit very difficult to drop. When did an Igbo man tell you he wanted to dominate everybody, Right from childhood my parents always sing it like sond to me never to depend on anybody, of course I can depend on sombody but it has to have a LIMIT, So I have been working hard since then and now I am self reliant and I am my own boss, look, that is our culture, when you are good in what you do you will be well known, and for you to be good, you have to work your a55 off, at that time, tell me even one Igbo man that got to a certain position without merit and hard work, if I go into a labour camp and do the job well more than every other person that were there before me, I make less mistakes, I finish my work before them, it just a matter of time I become the leader of the camp, even if I don't want to, because others will always consult you and ask for guidance when they hit a brick wall,that is how you become the leader of that camp. The Bible says that if you are good in your job or business you will dine with kings. So it is just natural. Now let us look at it this way, Igbos dominated, but Nigeria was the wonder of the third world then, a position China proudly occupies right now, and we were on course to become a first world country, But now, look at Nigeria, she has become a mighty prison, a zoo occupied by monkeys and baboons, the shame of the black man, and truly I say to you my friend, she shall continue to be so until you make common sense common. Only fools put their trust in Buhari!

Julius Nyereres insightful piece on Biafra says it all. Of course, I don't expect everyone to have the brain power to understand the concept of self determination which he enunciated here. The Biafran tragedy could have been averted if the ideology of "we must all be Nigerians wether we like it or not!" Had been done away with. Sadly,even to this day, many so called Nigerians still have this archaic mentality. I am an Igbo man, I have the right inalienable right to decide for myself if I am Nigerian or not. After all, Lord Lugard did not seek my consent before threw me together with people I have no connection with such as Yorubas and Hausas. A country derives it's legality to exist as nation by obtaining the express consent or permission of the people. If a country loses that consent, it loses legitimacy. Nigeria was a fraud when it was created by Lugard in 1914 because it didn't take into account the wishes of the people. Lugard knew that the area now known as the SS/SE would have rejected being included in Nigeria. Nigeria was a fraud then, it is a fraud now and it will always remain the personification of the fraudulent practice of the White Man in Africa and that is why it will never work. Biafra is the only alternative and the only homeland I as an Igbo man recognise.

pazienza:


Adaka Boro was not a leader of Ijaw people, he held no elective post or appointment post. How would Ironsi be sure he was actually speaking for Ijaw people, when we had Ijaw leaders in Enugu singing a different song. The only way would have been by Referendum to determine where the people stood, a similar thing was done for Bamenda in the Eastern region.

Moreover, you don't see Ndiigbo defending Ironsi actions of trying to uphold the fallacy of one Nigeria, no Igbo man defends his pre civil war actions, non of them were to our benefit.


No one down East is applauding GEJ for fighting to preserve the North, the General consensus is that he should let the North divide to allow the East freedom.

Can we say the same of the support Gowon and Awo got from their people, in their effort to bring back the East?

On a side note, the Biafran scenario is entirely different from the Boro and GEJ case. No body was killing the Ijaws, the North( Boko haram) were killing themselves,where as Biafrans were being killed by Nigerians with tact support/ in action of the Northern controlled central government.

There is simply no basis for the comparison of the those three events.

In all the cases I cited, the integrity of the sovereignty of the State is being threatened and the sitting President at that point in time acted decisively to protect the sovereignty of the nation.

Emphasis is on the protection of territorial integrity and sovereignty of the nation and not who is killing who.

I never supported the kiling of Igbos by northerners and can never support the killing of human beings. Most people 's point of view is that if there was no coup of January, under events that occurred would not have. That was the Genesis of the whole crisis.

Ijaw people never denied Adaka Boro's declaration. Just because a handful of Ijaws in the parliament in Enugu were singing different tunes, does not make his declaration invalid. Was Ike Nwachukwu not in the Nigerian Army that fought against Biafra? Would he not have been telling Gowon some unprintable things about Ojukwu. Would he not have informed Gowon that Ojukwu was forcing his pet project on his people.

Which independent person was present at the referendum for the declaration of Biafra? How are we sure Ojukwu did not use cohesive force to choose the people that voted at the referendum, using the Abacha's style and taking into cognisance that results are still being written in people's bedroom in 2015.

If Biafra declaration is valid, same goes for Isaac Boro's declaration.

In your own opinion, looking at those unfortunate incidents retrospectively, what do you think each party ought to have done differently, that could have been beneficial to all?

superstar1:


How many days does it take to court martial coup plotters? They were being detained in prisons in Eastern Region, where it was recorded those guys leave the prison at will for partying.

It must definitely be a day-prison facility.

Gideon Orkar and his boys were executed under how many days? Vatsa was sentenced under how many days? Dimka was arraigned and sentenced under how many days. The prosecution of soldiers that led the mutiny in Bornu and refused to fight the BH war took how many months to be completed?

Ironsi had 6months to serve justice and he never did.

I cannot authoritatively state that they acted on behalf of Igbo nation, but some facts are on ground that gave credence to it.

It was coup that was led by majorly Igbo officers. Fact.

It was a coup that the none of political gladiators of Igbo extraction was not killed. Fact.

It was also a known fact that just one Igbo officer was killed, which was out of vendetta. Fact.

The beneficiary of the coup was an igbo officer. Fact.

Regional powers were cancelled and power was centralised just for igbo to "dominate" others, like they used to say. Not a fact but is well founded.

You are all over the place. You need to calm down.

You are yet to answer my question, so I ask again. Can you authoritatively prove that Nzeogwu and co were acting on behalf of Ndiigbo? Yes or No.


Now let me give you reasons why Nzeogwu coup was not to Igbo advantage.

1. Igbo controlled two of the four regions of Nigeria before Nzeogwu coup. Osadebey and Okpara were the premiers of the Midwestern and Eastern regions respectively.

2. The regions enjoyed enormous powers, so much that Akintola's New coalition with the North would matter less, seeing as the two Igbo controlled regions just newly discovered oil wealth, and with the 50:50 revenue sharing formula between the region and the FG then, control of the East and Midwest was more lucrative than control of the FG.

3. How exactly did Ironsi centralization ish favour Ndiigbo, when it now meant that we had to share the newly discovered crude oil wealth of the Midwest and East with the North and the West, haven't we been accused of wanting Biafra just to corner the crude oil wealth of ND, how exactly would centralization of the government, help Ndiigbo to corner the crude oil, don't you think that regionalism was a better way to go, if the theory of Igbo greed for crude oil must hold?

4. The crude wealth of the Midwest and East would have put Ndiigbo millions of miles away from the North and the West, once we allowed the minorities to have an upper hand in the wealth.

Nzeogwu coup was totally anti Igbo.

It eliminated Akintola, Awo's nemesis. With Akintola alive, Yorubas would remain divided between Awo and Akintola, making their exploitation easier. Akintola death freed Awo, United Yorubas who then worked against Ndiigbo as a United front.

cocoduck:
One question that I always ask these brutes is this, Did Nzeogwu and his colleagues go to my grandfather or great granddad that He and his friends were about to do a coup d'Etat? Now did the killing of Mr. Bello and Mr. Balewa warrant the brutal massacre of MORE THAN THIRTY THOUSAND people, even CHILDREN who at best had no iota of idea of what just happened and were busy make ends meet? I need an Honest answer to these questions. If you truly wanted to avenge the deaths of those trouble makers (clearly they were not nationalists, they were tribal warriors, and I spit on them, spit on Ojukwu if you so wish, it is you mouth) you would have gone for their killers! not innocent women and kids, to show how inhumane Yoruba and their masters are. Well, I know very well that it has not always been like this, this inhumanity was learned by you guys from the Brits, which we all know carried on exactly were the Romans left, almost all British customs we see today have connections to ancient Rome, so I am not surprised. How on earth can anybody justify the massacre of women and kids? What do they have to do with the coup?

bro,1966 is far gone, tell me what gej winning election in 2011 has to do with Igbos but they were the primary target of the riot in the north,tell me what concerns the name Jimi with Igbo name,but the Igbos recieved all the threat of life in lagos, may amadioha punish any igbo man saying one nigeria.

zendy:
Julius Nyereres insightful piece on Biafra says it all. Of course, I don't expect everyone to have the brain power to understand the concept of self determination which he enunciated here. The Biafran tragedy could have been averted if the ideology of "we must all be Nigerians wether we live me it or not!" Had been done away with. Sadly,even to this day, many so called Nigerians still have this archaic mentality. I am an Igbo man, I have the right inalienable right to decide for myself if I am Nigerian or not. After all, Lord Lugard did not seek my consent before threw me together with people I have no connection with such as Yorubas and Hausas. A country or derives it's legality to exist as nation by obtaining the express consent or permission of the people. If a country loses that consent, it loses legitimacy. Nigeria was a fraud when it was created by Lugard in 1914 because it didn't take into account the wishes of the people. Lugard knew that the area now known as the SS/SE would have rejected being included in Nigeria. Nigeria was a fraud then, it is a fraud now and it will always remain the personification of the fraudulent practice of the White Man in Africa and that is why it will work. Biafra is the only alternative and homeland I as an Igbo man recognise.

The concept of self determination that he elucidated in the write up was effectively negated by the part of the write up that says State must protect their territorial integrity and sovereignty.

superstar1:


In all the cases I sited, the integrity of the sovereignty of the State is being threatened and the sitting President at that point in time acted decisively to protect the sovereignty of the nation.

Emphasis is on the protection of territorial integrity and sovereignty of the nation and not who is killing who.

I never supported of Igbos by northerners and can never support the killing of human beings. Most people 's point of view is that if there was no coup of January, under events that occurred would not have. That was the Genesis of the whole crisis.

Ijaw people never denied Adaka Boro's declaration. Just because a handful of Ijaws in the parliament in Enugu were singing different tunes, does not make his declaration invalid. Was Ike Nwachukwu not in the Nigerian Army that fought against Bi afraid? Would he not have been telling Gowon some unprintable things about Ojukwu. Would he not have informed Gowon that Ojukwu was forcing his pet project on his people.

Which independent person was present at the referendum for the declaration of Biafra? How are we sure Ojukwu did not use cohesive force to choose the people that voted at the referendum, using the Abacha's style and taking into cognisance that results are still being written in people's bedroom in 2015.

If Biafra declaration is valid, same goes for Isaac Boro's declaration.

In your own opinion, looking at those unfortunate incidents retrospectively, what do you think each party ought to have done differently, that could have been beneficial to all?

Ojukwu was always open to UN supervised plebiscite in Biafra. The world knew the people were with Ojukwu.

I don't support Ironsi actions against Boro, I had made that clear. You won't see any Igbo man defending Ironsi actions as the right one.

The right thing would have been a referendum to determine the true stance of the Ijaw people. Don't forget that Boro's NDelta republic was strictly for Ijaw speaking people of SS.

superstar1:


The concept of self determination that he elucidated in the write up was effectively negated by the part of the write up that says State must protect their territorial integrity and sovereignty.

There is no territorial integrity to protect if the state has no legitimacy.