Deadlytruth:


Wrong! Ironsi met civilians on ground and even had audience with them according to the account given by Richard Akinjide and corroborated by Maitama Sule. The civilians threw up Dipcharima to replace the slain prime minister so the country's affairs would continue being run peacefully while putting the past behind. But Ironsi refused and threatened them into unwilling submission. That heightened the perception of a hidden agenda on Ironsi's part on behalf of his kinsmen thus inspiring the counter coup through which Gowon rose to power. A counter coup plotted by Northerners aimed at crushing in the bud a perceived domination agenda by Igbos and abrogating offensive centripetal decrees put in place by Igbos to entrench Igbo hegemony could never have been allowed to throw up Ojukwu, an Igbo man, as the ultimate beneficiary in the name of following seniority order.
At that moment the military had become polarized along ethnic lines and thus lost professionalism which seniority considerations are a hallmark of. So seniority rule went away with the loss of professionalism to tribalism.
Moreover, before then, Ojukwu's silence on Ironsi's refusal to punish the coup plotters who murdered their superiors in cold blood had made nonsense of the seniority case Ojukwu was trying to make.

Ojukwu's refusal to let reason prevail over emotions was what kept Gowon in power longer than necessary. How could Gowon have continued with his re-federalization steps to the point of handing power back to civilians when Ojukwu was no longer ready for anything other than war? Could Gowon have conducted elections to return power to the civilians thus restoring federalism in the country including the Eastern Region where Ojukwu was saying "confederalism or war"?

Trash as usual from you.

Civilians were toppled by Nzeogwu coup. Zik was on the run, Balewa and Saraduna were dead and the military were in control.
The civilian government had been toppled already, they were no longer in charge before Ironsi stepped in.
The civilians were no longer in charge the moment Nzeogwu and his boys struck. Any body could stay in his room and throw up people to replace Balewa, but they were no longer in charge. The military, first Nzeogwu boys, then Ironsi boys were in charge. Ironsi met no sitting president or prime minister, the deposed civilian government were at the mercy of the Khaki Boys, and they were still on ground when Gowon won the war, Dipcharima didn't die before 1970, did he? What stopped Gowon from doing the right thing?



You keep going in circles, making conjectures Up and down.


Gowon didn't at any point tried to hand over power to the civilian government, and Ojukwu declined.
Gowon was power grabbing, and continued doing so even after the war ended, until he was booted out.

Gowon sent Inferior brains to a supposedly important Aburi accord, and you blame Ojukwu for this, when in actual fact, Gowon intent of keeping any agreement reached at such gathering should be questioned, seeing as he didn't consider it important enough to send superior brains, obviously because he had no intentions of keeping agreements reached there, he was prepared to roll out his guns from the very beginning?
Or was he just plain incompetent and lacking in knowledge, as to not know the importance of such gathering and it's agreements?

Deadlytruth:


It was actually Ironsi's taking over of power that led to the evaporation of the 1963 constitution. The coup of Nzeogwu and Ifeajuna was a military mutiny which Ironsi could have punished them for with court-martial according to military code of ethics, and thereafter proceeded to uphold the constitution by simply replacing the slain premiers with their deputies and swearing in Dipcharima to complete Balewa's new tenure, and then exiting the stage as a professional apolitical soldier amidst cheers and international accolades and possible international awards of Nobel Peace prize in subsequent times. With such action, peace and confidence would have returned to the military as an unbiased arbiter hence the military would not have become this politicized and unprofessional, thus the tragic Civil War would have been avoided.

As per the bolded, there was nothing really wrong with Gowon's creation of 12 states as agitation for more regions had already been on before the military ever came. After the creation of the Midwest, COR and Middle Belt were to follow under the civilians. So the action of Gowon's, being from a minority himself, was actually a positive response to the minorities' age long quest to secure their own autonomy and insulation from the three dominant tribes. What really mattered therefore was not the number of states or regions created but the degree to which they were autonomous. Had Ironsi never tampered with the structure, the pre-military era true federalism would have trickled down to as many states or regions as would have later being definitely created. That is why even though we are now 36 states we still correctly believe that resource control for the states, and not a return to the four regional structure, is all we genuinely need put an end to Nigeria's failure.

You are completely wrong. As history tells us, Nzeogwu was already successful in the North, while thr coup fell short in the South. Ironsi then took control in the South and there was a stalemate. It took the intervention of Lt Colonel Nwawo and Major Obasunjo to negotiate between Ironsi and Nzeogwu, both of who were threatening to attack the other. In the end, Nzeogwu decided to surrender on the condition that Ironsi would grant the coup plotters amnesty, to which Ironsi agreed. Nzeogwu then flew with Nwawo back to Lagos where he surrendered and was detained. It was due to this agreement that Ironsi did not immidiately try and execute Nzeogwu and his fellow coup plotters. He instead he kept them in detention. I also do not think that it was practical that Ironsi could have handed over to to civilians straight away in those tumultuous days. Nzeogwus coup was actually initially very popular because the people were tired of Politicians.

Also, Ironsi did not change the structural configuration of Nigeria. Ironsi met 4 Regions and left four Regions. But Gowon met 4 Regions and created 12 states. This was the biggest thing that changed the structural makeup of Nigeria for had Gowon kept the 4 Regions the way Ironsi kep them and not subdivided them, we would have continued Regionalism whenever civil rule returned. Nigeria was like a compound with 4 autonomous buildings. Ironsi comes in as the new caretaker and draws up a news tenancy agreement in which he takes some powers from the tenants and gives it to himself at the center. Gowon comes in as the new caretaker, not only does he change the tenancy agreement like Ironsi, he goes the extrer step further to go into the 4 building yo reconcruct them into 12 flats. While a tenancy agreement can always be renegotiated, returning the flats into the houses the once were is far more difficult.



From 4 Regions we today have 36 unitary states. While it is true that there was an agitation for COR Region, it was not the duty of Gowon to create it. The duty of Gowon was to hold a constitutional conference and conduct elections in the 4 Regions. The agitation for creation of more Regions can then continue in a civilian setting.

Gowon was the true destroyer of Regionalism in Nigeria and not Ironsi

pazienza:


Trash as usual from you.

Civilians were toppled by Nzeogwu coup. Zik was on the run, Balewa and Saraduna were dead and the military were in control.
The civilian government had been toppled already, they were no longer in charge before Ironsi stepped in.
The civilians were no longer in charge the moment Nzeogwu and his boys struck. Any body could stay in his room and throw up people to replace Balewa, but they were no longer in charge. The military, first Nzeogwu boys, then Ironsi boys were in charge. Ironsi met no sitting president or prime minister, the deposed civilian government were at the mercy of the Khaki Boys, and they were still on ground when Gowon won the war, Dipcharima didn't die before 1970, did he? What stopped Gowon from doing the right thing?



You keep going in circles, making conjectures Up and down.


Gowon didn't at any point tried to hand over power to the civilian government, and Ojukwu declined.
Gowon was power grabbing, and continued doing so even after the war ended, until he was booted out.

Gowon sent Inferior brains to a supposedly important Aburi accord, and you blame Ojukwu for this, when in actual fact, Gowon intent of keeping any agreement reached at such gathering should be questioned, seeing as he didn't consider it important enough to send superior brains, obviously because he had no intentions of keeping agreements reached there, he was prepared to roll out his guns from the very beginning?
Or was he just plain incompetent and lacking in knowledge, as to not know the importance of such gathering and it's agreements?

For now I will ignore the fact that you have as usual introduced emotions and insultive language into the debate again. It actually takes someone devoid of logical input to easily resort to emotional outbursts and foul language.
That said; the reason for which Ironsi supposedly foiled the coup was to prevent a disruption of the civilian regime by the military and thereby preserving democracy. On that note he was expected to hand over power back to the civilians. But his taking over power yielded exactly the same result ( military incursion into politics) as Ifeajuna's coup would have yielded if successful. So of what use was his foiling of the coup when the end result of it was going to be the same as that of the coup he foiled? It is like uprooting a diseased mango tree only to replace it with another diseased mango tree. How does that make sense? Nzeogwu and Ifeajuna wanted to take power from the civilians. Ironsi stopped them from doing so but he himself took the power and claimed he stopped the coup as if the coup was meant to achieve anything different from what his own action resulted in. This alone shows he was after power for a hidden agenda.

Government is never about individuals but institutions which are founded on constitutional provisions which the military swore to defend. So even if the civilians in charge had been wiped out, the constitution had not. Ironsi met the constitution still in place and intact and he knew what the constitution prescribed for such situation. Why did he not simply follow it despite having sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution by virtue of his profession and rank? Did the constitution permit taking of power through any means outside election? Before then a person who attempted it had been jailed and also people had started accusing the federal government of lawlessness for earlier on bypassing the constitution to install a premier in one of the regions. So why did Ironsi choose to defy the sanctity of the constitution? When Yaradua died and there was constitutional crisis, did soldiers take over against constitutional provisions on how to get out of the imbroglio? Why did Ironsi not simply follow military law and arrest the coupists while allowing the civilians to invoke constitutional provisions to sort themselves out as per the power vacuum created thereof? Was the Ifeajuna coup legal to warrant using it as a premise or excuse to get himself involved in governance of the country?
Did the constitution or military laws recommend military take over as a solution to any crisis in the country?

Not even Ojukwu himself was supposed to attend the Aburi Accord where Michael Okpara was. Ojukwu was never elected by the Easterners represent them in any legislative businesses. Same with the attendees handpicked by Gowon.
Aburi Summit lacked legitimacy for the fact that as a legislative meeting supposedly on behalf of the civilian populace, the civilians themselves were neither consulted through their elected representatives or allowed to have a say.
Why on earth would just few soldiers just handpick themselves, go to a far away country and claim they were making laws for millions of civilians who already made their laws themselves as far back as 1957 in London and in that document spelt out how the laws could be altered by themselves alone? That was pure rubbish!
Aburi Summit was at best a charade organized by unelected persons for themselves. It was its shambolic and illegitimately constituted manner that made it possible for dullard's to be handpicked by Gowon with Ojukwu himself usurping the supposed role of Zik and Okpara in representation.

Gowon actually began a re-federalization of the country and that was enough evidence that he was sincerely committed to eliminating the vestiges of the coup and the eventual demilitarization of the polity. His revoke of Ironsi's Unification and Anti-seccession Decrees were the most salient pointers

gidgiddy:


You are completely wrong. As history tells us, Nzeogwu was already successful in the North, while thr coup fell short in the South. Ironsi then took control in the South and there was a stalemate. It took the intervention of Lt Colonel Nwawo and Major Obasunjo to negotiate between Ironsi and Nzeogwu, both of who were threatening to attack the other. In the end, Nzeogwu decided to surrender on the condition that Ironsi would grant the coup plotters amnesty, to which Ironsi agreed. Nzeogwu then flew with Nwawo back to Lagos where he surrendered and was detained. It was due to this agreement that Ironsi did not immidiately try and execute Nzeogwu and his fellow coup plotters. He instead he kept them in detention. I also do not think that it was practical that Ironsi could have handed over to to civilians straight away in those tumultuous days. Nzeogwus coup was actually initially very popular because the people were tired of Politicians.

Also, Ironsi did not change the structural configuration of Nigeria. Ironsi met 4 Regions and left four Regions. But Gowon met 4 Regions and created 12 states. This was the biggest thing that changed the structural makeup of Nigeria for had Gowon kept the 4 Regions the way Ironsi kep them and not subdivided them, we would have continued Regionalism whenever civil rule returned. Nigeria was like a compound with 4 autonomous buildings. Ironsi comes in as the new caretaker and draws up a news tenancy agreement in which he takes some powers from the tenants and gives it to himself at the center. Gowon comes in as the new caretaker, not only does he change the tenancy agreement like Ironsi, he goes the extrer step further to go into the 4 building yo reconcruct them into 12 flats. While a tenancy agreement can always be renegotiated, returning the flats into the houses the once were is far more difficult.



From 4 Regions we today have 36 unitary states. While it is true that there was an agitation for COR Region, it was not the duty of Gowon to create it. The duty of Gowon was to hold a constitutional conference and conduct elections in the 4 Regions. The agitation for creation of more Regions can then continue in a civilian setting.

Gowon was the true destroyer of Regionalism in Nigeria and not Ironsi

Your claim that the success of the coup in the North translated to overall success is quite wondrous. It is like a student who failed Math and English but passed in all other subjects is qualified for university admission.
As far as Ironsi could within split seconds rally loyal troops to quell the coup between 4:00 am and 6:00 am same day, he had all it would have taken for him to give powers back to the civilians and rally his loyal troops, which were in the overwhelming majority in the military, to guard the civilians heavily against any stupid attempt from any stupid young officer. Moreover the tension on ground at that moment was so scary that no young officer would have tried any mess if Dipcharima had been sworn in by their GOC.
As per the structure Ironsi dismantled; let me lecture you a bit on some few details.
Ironsi unified the civil service immediately he got to power. Now let's take it from there.
In elementary Secondary school Government classes it is taught that the civil service is the only institution through which government exercises all its constitutional powers be it for revenue drive, execution of projects, payment of salaries, employment of new persons, etc. In other words government is civil service and civil service is government.
Now, how could Ironsi's unification of the civil service have translated to regional structure intactness? The intactness we are talking of is not about the shape or map outline of the regions but the powers which the constitution provided them with. A regional or state government without its civil service is as good as a dummy. Imagine you being the governor of your state with your state's civil servants answerable to Abuja and not you. What kind of government will you really be able to run? By unifying the civil service Ironsi castrated the regional governments thus took away their powers to generate revenue, control their resources, etc. How do you think Ironsi could have continued paying the salaries of the centralized civil servants without also centralizing the regional sources of revenue from which those salaries were initially being generated? Was Ironsi that rich to have been able to pay them entirely from his own pocket without recourse to analgamating the regional sources of revenues thus killing resource control?
Eventually in May of that year Ironsi made his infamous broadcast in which he announced that Nigeria had ceased to be what is called a federation and that the official name of the country had ceased to be "Federal Republic of Nigeria" but had become just "Republic of Nigeria" meaning the federating units had died. He went further to argue that the bane of national unity was regionalism, and then lied that all well meaning Nigerians wanted it abolished.

Deadlytruth:


For now I will ignore the fact that you have as usual introduced emotions and insultive language into the debate again. It actually takes someone devoid of logical input to easily resort to emotional outbursts and foul language.
That said; the reason for which Ironsi supposedly foiled the coup was to prevent a disruption of the civilian regime by the military and thereby preserving democracy. On that note he was expected to hand over power back to the civilians. But his taking over power yielded exactly the same result ( military incursion into politics) as Ifeajuna's coup would have yielded if successful. So of what use was his foiling of the coup when the end result of it was going to be the same as that of the coup he foiled? It is like uprooting a diseased mango tree only to replace it with another diseased mango tree. How does that make sense? Nzeogwu and Ifeajuna wanted to take power from the civilians. Ironsi stopped them from doing so but he himself took the power and claimed he stopped the coup as if the coup was meant to achieve anything different from what his own action resulted in. This alone shows he was after power for a hidden agenda.

Government is never about individuals but institutions which are founded on constitutional provisions which the military swore to defend. So even if the civilians in charge had been wiped out, the constitution had not. Ironsi met the constitution still in place and intact and he knew what the constitution prescribed for such situation. Why did he not simply follow it despite having sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution by virtue of his profession and rank? Did the constitution permit taking of power through any means outside election? Before then a person who attempted it had been jailed and also people had started accusing the federal government of lawlessness for earlier on bypassing the constitution to install a premier in one of the regions. So why did Ironsi choose to defy the sanctity of the constitution? When Yaradua died and there was constitutional crisis, did soldiers take over against constitutional provisions on how to get out of the imbroglio? Why did Ironsi not simply follow military law and arrest the coupists while allowing the civilians to invoke constitutional provisions to sort themselves out as per the power vacuum created thereof? Was the Ifeajuna coup legal to warrant using it as a premise or excuse to get himself involved in governance of the country?
Did the constitution or military laws recommend military take over as a solution to any crisis in the country?

Not even Ojukwu himself was supposed to attend the Aburi Accord where Michael Okpara was. Ojukwu was never elected by the Easterners represent them in any legislative businesses. Same with the attendees handpicked by Gowon.
Aburi Summit lacked legitimacy for the fact that as a legislative meeting supposedly on behalf of the civilian populace, the civilians themselves were neither consulted through their elected representatives or allowed to have a say.
Why on earth would just few soldiers just handpick themselves, go to a far away country and claim they were making laws for millions of civilians who already made their laws themselves as far back as 1957 in London and in that document spelt out how the laws could be altered by themselves alone? That was pure rubbish!
Aburi Summit was at best a charade organized by unelected persons for themselves. It was its shambolic and illegitimately constituted manner that made it possible for dullard's to be handpicked by Gowon with Ojukwu himself usurping the supposed role of Zik and Okpara in representation.

Gowon actually began a re-federalization of the country and that was enough evidence that he was sincerely committed to eliminating the vestiges of the coup and the eventual demilitarization of the polity. His revoke of Ironsi's Unification and Anti-seccession Decrees were the most salient pointers

As usual, bunch of verbose trash

From blaming Ojukwu for winning a debate against inferior people Gowon sent, to now totally discarding Aburi as a charade,when you saw you were losing out on that angle. you have come in full circle just in hours.


I'd like to know where and when Ironsi told you he ousted Nzeogwu and co, because he wanted to re install civilian government, you really are making a fool of yourself.

Nzeogwu and his boys had already taken power from the civilians, Ironsi did a mini coup and took away power from them almost immediately, it was a coup within coup, go figure.

So, why did Gowon foil Ironsi government? Let me guess? It wasn't to undo Ironsi "blunders ", it was to perpetuate himself on power, when he had all the liberty to undo all the supposedly wrong Ironsi did.
Why did Gowon not hand over to Dipcharima when he won the war? Why did he have to be booted out of power? Let me guess, it was Ironsi fault, right? Gowon took forever doing your phantom refederalization until he was booted out of power years after the war lasted
You are a comedian.

You hold Ironsi unto the same standard you wouldn't want Gowon being held unto, and you vilify Ironsi for his actions which lasted for 6months, while you praise Gowon for doing similar and worst thing for years.

It's the norm for mischievous Nigerians like you, to hold Igbos to standards none of you and your rulers can live up to.

The crisis which Aburi Summit was aimed at resolving was actually a direct fall out of Ironsi's pioneership in the mutilation of the "we the people" constitution we started with. Logic therefore dictated that the only resolutions that everyone back at home would have welcomed gladly and wholeheartedly was the restoration of the independence constitution exactly as it was mutually accented to in the 1957 conference by all stakeholders before Ironsi vandalised it.


No, true logic demands that the only way of returning to pre Nzeogwu coup days, was for Gowon to stop his mutiny, hand over to Dipcharima like you expected Ironsi to do, then insist Ojukwu and the rest of the Khaki boys stepped down, so that the Aburi talks would have been made by civilian leaders, for that was the only way to return to pre Nzeogwu days.

But was this what Gowon was angling for? No! He wanted total success of his mutiny by seeking to bring the Eastern region and Ojukwu under his submission.

Had Gowon stepped down for Dipcharima, and re installed the civilian government, then called for Ojukwu to do same, and he declined, you would have had a point, but as it stands, you have no point, none whatsoever.

Had the political leaders of the regions been allowed to attend the summit Ojukwu definitely wouldn't have had his way so easily as to get the less educated Northern attendees to sign his confederalism proposals blindly without having a deep knowledge of what it implied.

Obviously, the East didn't miss the political leaders, as Ojukwu proved himself to be an intellectual. But the North could have benefited from their political leaders in Aburi, instead, they got intellectually inferior reps.

So I ask, whose fault was it that The North didn't get quality representation at Aburi?
Whose fault was it, that it wasn't Dipcharima and gang that showed up in Aburi trying to persuade Ojukwu to step down and usher in civilian rule ?
Why didn't Gowon hand over to Dipcharima, the moment Ironsi was ousted, and insist that Ojukwu step down for civilians?

Of course, logically, it was Gowon fault.

It is however an irony that the same Ojukwu who rejoiced at and justified Ironsi's dismantling of federalism and imposition of unitary system - the centripetal structure, later within few months became an Aburi advocate of confederalism - the centrifugal structure. That was inconsistency built on an afterthought. So Ojukwu was as inconsistent as Gowon in the whole exercise of seeking the right structure for the country.

This is you trying to make light of Gowon reneging on Aburi agreement, by trying to push a agenda of Ojukwu holding different opinions before Aburi, but when I reminded you that opinions and agreements are not quite same, you changed like a chameleon and now started preaching how the entire Aburi was a charade that lacked legitimacy, yet you were crying not long ago about the inferior representatives the North had at Aburi.


And by the way, speaking of change of opinions, it's also a known fact that the northern military junta, Gowon inclusive were angling for secession of the North from Nigeria during their counter coup and Igbo massacre. The chant was "Araba ", ie division. But quickly changed to one Nigeria later.

Opinions can be changed, but what's the point of wasting time to make an agreement you have no intention of keeping, especially when this was highlighted by Gowon sending Inferior representatives to Aburi, like you noted.
Obviously, he wasn't ready for any discussion or peaceful dissolutions of the conflict.

pazienza:



As usual, bunch of verbose trash

From blaming Ojukwu for winning a debate against inferior people Gowon sent, to now totally discarding Aburi as a charade,when you saw you were losing out on that angle. you have come in full circle just in hours.


I'd like to know where and when Ironsi told you he ousted Nzeogwu and co, because he wanted to re install civilian government, you really are making a fool of yourself.

Nzeogwu and his boys had already taken power from the civilians, Ironsi did a mini coup and took away power from them almost immediately, it was a coup within coup, go figure.

So, why did Gowon foil Ironsi government? Let me guess? It wasn't to undo Ironsi "blunders ", it was to perpetuate himself on power, when he had all the liberty to undo all the supposedly wrong Ironsi did.
Why did Gowon not hand over to Dipcharima when he won the war? Why did he have to be booted out of power? Let me guess, it was Ironsi fault, right? Gowon took forever doing your phantom refederalization until he was booted out of power years after the war lasted
You are a comedian.

You hold Ironsi unto the same standard you wouldn't want Gowon being held unto, and you vilify Ironsi for his actions which lasted for 6months, while you praise Gowon for doing similar and worst thing for years.

It's the norm for mischievous Nigerians like you, to hold Igbos to standards none of you and your rulers can live up to.

The incoherent chatter from a demented melancholic as usual. Aburi remains a charade as it lacked representative legitimacy. Prove that wrong with sound reasoning rather than your usual blunderbuss of self contradictory postulations.

Of course your disease of lack of comprehension remains untreated or else how does the clear use of the word "supposedly" translate to the outright claim that Ironsi announced verbatim that he came to restore civilian rule?
And if he did not come to restore civil rule as you claim on his behalf, then what more vindication do people like us need for our belief that he came to entrench Igbo agenda and was actually the hand of Esau behind the Nzeogwu coup?
See how you contradict yourself shamelessly? What mission other than a return to civil rule should any sincere soldier have for foiling a coup? In your vile attempts to justify Ironsi's introduction of military rule you have shot yourself in the foot and indicted him of sinister motives.
.You are a shameless revisionist. In one sentence you claim Ironsi foiled the coup, yet in another you claim Nzeogwu and Ifeajuna had already taken power. Who takes over power through a foiled coup? What you smoke is very powerful. Did Ifeajuna take power from the Ghana he escaped to? Your lies give you away obviously. I have never seen a person as unintelligent as yourself. Do you check the coherence of your messages at all before pasting them?

Rather than prove it wrong that Ojukwu's irrational intransigence kept Gowon in power and prevented him from completing his restoration mission you keep regurgitating the questions for which that was given as answer. You speak like a broken record.
Gowon rightly found it more expedient to address Ojukwu's threat to national sovereignty than to continue with re-federalization. What had Gowon got to do with Dipcharima when Ironsi's unification and Anti-seccession Decrees possed a more deadly threat to national existence than the Ifeajuna coup?
Yes we hold Ironsi and Igbos to a higher standard because they ignited the problem of constitution mutilation in the first instance. If you people had left our constitution the way you met it Gowon would not have even risen to power let alone tamper with it as well. Adam is called the father of sin not because he is the biggest sinner the world ever knows but because he introduced sin to humanity.
Before Ironsi came the constitution was sacrosanct and sacred. But his pioneership role in vandalization of it emboldened all others to attack it. He also introduced military rule which led to the dog eat dog situation that created a vicious cycle of such.

pazienza:
It is however an irony that the same Ojukwu who rejoiced at and justified Ironsi's dismantling of federalism and imposition of unitary system - the centripetal structure, later within few months became an Aburi advocate of confederalism - the centrifugal structure. That was inconsistency built on an afterthought. So Ojukwu was as inconsistent as Gowon in the whole exercise of seeking the right structure for the country.

This is you trying to make light of Gowon reneging on Aburi agreement, by trying to push a agenda of Ojukwu holding different opinions before Aburi, but when I reminded you that opinions and agreements are not quite same, you changed like a chameleon and now started preaching how the entire Aburi was a charade that lacked legitimacy, yet you were crying not long ago about the inferior representatives the North had at Aburi.


And by the way, speaking of change of opinions, it's also a known fact that the northern military junta, Gowon inclusive were angling for secession of the North from Nigeria during their counter coup and Igbo massacre. The chant was "Araba ", ie division. But quickly changed to one Nigeria later.

Opinions can be changed, but what's the point of wasting time to make an agreement you have no intention of keeping, especially when this was highlighted by Gowon sending Inferior representatives to Aburi, like you noted.
Obviously, he wasn't ready for any discussion or peaceful dissolutions of the conflict.

Trash! Issues are addressed in their chronological order. Ironsi introduced military rule and that led to all the other tragic events.
So first answer the question as to why Ironsi introduced a government system alien to the constitution before we can talk of Gowon who came after him. If you don't tell us what justified Ironsi's action, but keep trying to jump over it to Gowon's which was just a fallout of that, then you are a fraud. Answer the question on Ironsi first so that we can have enough premise to talk of Gowon's decisions which followed.

Deadlytruth:


The incoherent chatter from a demented melancholic as usual. Aburi remains a charade as it lacked representative legitimacy. Prove that wrong with sound reasoning rather than your usual blunderbuss of self contradictory postulations.

Of course your disease of lack of comprehension remains untreated or else how does the clear use of the word "supposedly" translate to the outright claim that Ironsi announced verbatim that he came to restore civilian rule?
And if he did not come to restore civil rule as you claim on his behalf, then what more vindication do people like us need for our belief that he came to entrench Igbo agenda and was actually the hand of Esau behind the Nzeogwu coup?
See how you contradict yourself shamelessly? What mission other than a return to civil rule should any sincere soldier have for foiling a coup? In your vile attempts to justify Ironsi's introduction of military rule you have shot yourself in the foot and indicted him of sinister motives.
.You are a shameless revisionist. In one sentence you claim Ironsi foiled the coup, yet in another you claim Nzeogwu and Ifeajuna had already taken power. Who takes over power through a foiled coup? What you smoke is very powerful. Did Ifeajuna take power from the Ghana he escaped to? Your lies give you away obviously. I have never seen a person as unintelligent as yourself. Do you check the coherence of your messages at all before pasting them?

Rather than prove it wrong that Ojukwu's irrational intransigence kept Gowon in power and prevented him from completing his restoration mission you keep regurgitating the questions for which that was given as answer. You speak like a broken record.
Gowon rightly found it more expedient to address Ojukwu's threat to national sovereignty than to continue with re-federalization. What had Gowon got to do with Dipcharima when Ironsi's unification and Anti-seccession Decrees possed a more deadly threat to national existence than the Ifeajuna coup?
Yes we hold Ironsi and Igbos to a higher standard because they ignited the problem of constitution mutilation in the first instance. If you people had left our constitution the way you met it Gowon would not have even risen to power let alone tamper with it as well. Adam is called the father of sin not because he is the biggest sinner the world ever knows but because he introduced sin to humanity.
Before Ironsi came the constitution was sacrosanct and sacred. But his pioneership role in vandalization of it emboldened all others to attack it. He also introduced military rule which led to the dog eat dog situation that created a vicious cycle of such.

Still verbose trash that failed to explain why

1, Gowon didn't hand over to Dipcharima when he ousted Ironsi , since according to you, that's the right thing to do. Or does this right thing apply only to Ironsi?

2, Gowon still again failed to hand over to Dipcharima who was still "on ground ", when the war ended in 1970.

Deadlytruth:


Your claim that the success of the coup in the North translated to overall success is quite wondrous. It is like a student who failed Math and English but passed in all other subjects is qualified for university admission.
As far as Ironsi could within split seconds rally loyal troops to quell the coup between 4:00 am and 6:00 am same day, he had all it would have taken for him to give powers back to the civilians and rally his loyal troops, which were in the overwhelming majority in the military, to guard the civilians heavily against any stupid attempt from any stupid young officer. Moreover the tension on ground at that moment was so scary that no young officer would have tried any mess if Dipcharima had been sworn in by their GOC.
As per the structure Ironsi dismantled; let me lecture you a bit on some few details.
Ironsi unified the civil service immediately he got to power. Now let's take it from there.
In elementary Secondary school Government classes it is taught that the civil service is the only institution through which government exercises all its constitutional powers be it for revenue drive, execution of projects, payment of salaries, employment of new persons, etc. In other words government is civil service and civil service is government.
Now, how could Ironsi's unification of the civil service have translated to regional structure intactness? The intactness we are talking of is not about the shape or map outline of the regions but the powers which the constitution provided them with. A regional or state government without its civil service is as good as a dummy. Imagine you being the governor of your state with your state's civil servants answerable to Abuja and not you. What kind of government will you really be able to run? By unifying the civil service Ironsi castrated the regional governments thus took away their powers to generate revenue, control their resources, etc. How do you think Ironsi could have continued paying the salaries of the centralized civil servants without also centralizing the regional sources of revenue from which those salaries were initially being generated? Was Ironsi that rich to have been able to pay them entirely from his own pocket without recourse to analgamating the regional sources of revenues thus killing resource control?
Eventually in May of that year Ironsi made his infamous broadcast in which he announced that Nigeria had ceased to be what is called a federation and that the official name of the country had ceased to be "Federal Republic of Nigeria" but had become just "Republic of Nigeria" meaning the federating units had died. He went further to argue that the bane of national unity was regionalism, and then lied that all well meaning Nigerians wanted it abolished.

Ironsi took over power in tumultuous times. The Primeminister was dead, two Regional premiers (Akintola and the Sarduana) were dead, the president was out of the country, most of the political elite had taken flight and half of the country was in Nzeogwus hands. I dont see how Ironsi could have handed over power to anyone in that chaotic situation. But it is possible thst Ironsi used the confusion of the time to sieze power.

Anyone is wrong in saying was that it was Ironsi who caused true federalism to go away. No matter what Ironsi did, he did not abolish the 4 Regions. If those 4 Regions had been maintained, we would still have Regionalism on return to civil rule because it would have been the frsmework of 4 Regions that politicians would have had to work with. Maybe we may have had more Regions by now but we would have still had Regionalism

That act by Gowon of abolishing the 4 Regions and creating 12 states is what brought us to where we are today. All the 36 states of Nigeria were military creations, not one was created by civilians. And it all started with Gowon.

pazienza:
It is however an irony that the same Ojukwu who rejoiced at and justified Ironsi's dismantling of federalism and imposition of unitary system - the centripetal structure, later within few months became an Aburi advocate of confederalism - the centrifugal structure. That was inconsistency built on an afterthought. So Ojukwu was as inconsistent as Gowon in the whole exercise of seeking the right structure for the country.

This is you trying to make light of Gowon reneging on Aburi agreement, by trying to push a agenda of Ojukwu holding different opinions before Aburi, but when I reminded you that opinions and agreements are not quite same, you changed like a chameleon and now started preaching how the entire Aburi was a charade that lacked legitimacy, yet you were crying not long ago about the inferior representatives the North had at Aburi.


And by the way, speaking of change of opinions, it's also a known fact that the northern military junta, Gowon inclusive were angling for secession of the North from Nigeria during their counter coup and Igbo massacre. The chant was "Araba ", ie division. But quickly changed to one Nigeria later.

Opinions can be changed, but what's the point of wasting time to make an agreement you have no intention of keeping, especially when this was highlighted by Gowon sending Inferior representatives to Aburi, like you noted.
Obviously, he wasn't ready for any discussion or peaceful dissolutions of the conflict.

The bolded is pure rubbish. When did you remind me of that? And that itself is double standards. Ojukwu was initially an apostle of unitary system when he and Ironsi were in power, but when they lost power he became a confederalist. Jumping from one ideological extreme to the other. Why did he not propose Aburi Summit when Ironsi his brother was in power destroying the structure?
Don't forget to answer the question why Ironsi introduced military rule against the constitution and military ethics? Answer that before we talk of Gowon who came later.

Deadlytruth:


Your claim that the success of the coup in the North translated to overall success is quite wondrous. It is like a student who failed Math and English but passed in all other subjects is qualified for university admission.
As far as Ironsi could within split seconds rally loyal troops to quell the coup between 4:00 am and 6:00 am same day, he had all it would have taken for him to give powers back to the civilians and rally his loyal troops, which were in the overwhelming majority in the military, to guard the civilians heavily against any stupid attempt from any stupid young officer. Moreover the tension on ground at that moment was so scary that no young officer would have tried any mess if Dipcharima had been sworn in by their GOC.
As per the structure Ironsi dismantled; let me lecture you a bit on some few details.
Ironsi unified the civil service immediately he got to power. Now let's take it from there.
In elementary Secondary school Government classes it is taught that the civil service is the only institution through which government exercises all its constitutional powers be it for revenue drive, execution of projects, payment of salaries, employment of new persons, etc. In other words government is civil service and civil service is government.
Now, how could Ironsi's unification of the civil service have translated to regional structure intactness? The intactness we are talking of is not about the shape or map outline of the regions but the powers which the constitution provided them with. A regional or state government without its civil service is as good as a dummy. Imagine you being the governor of your state with your state's civil servants answerable to Abuja and not you. What kind of government will you really be able to run? By unifying the civil service Ironsi castrated the regional governments thus took away their powers to generate revenue, control their resources, etc. How do you think Ironsi could have continued paying the salaries of the centralized civil servants without also centralizing the regional sources of revenue from which those salaries were initially being generated? Was Ironsi that rich to have been able to pay them entirely from his own pocket without recourse to analgamating the regional sources of revenues thus killing resource control?
Eventually in May of that year Ironsi made his infamous broadcast in which he announced that Nigeria had ceased to be what is called a federation and that the official name of the country had ceased to be "Federal Republic of Nigeria" but had become just "Republic of Nigeria" meaning the federating units had died. He went further to argue that the bane of national unity was regionalism, and then lied that all well meaning Nigerians wanted it abolished.

Ironsi took over power in tumultuous times. The Primeminister was dead, two Regional premiers (Akintola and the Sarduana) were dead, the president was out of the country, most of the political elite had taken flight and half of the country was in Nzeogwus hands. I dont see how Ironsi could have handed over power to anyone in that chaotic situation. But it is possible thst Ironsi used the confusion of the time to sieze power.

Anyone is wrong in saying was that it was Ironsi who caused true federalism to go away. No matter what Ironsi did, he did not abolish the 4 Regions. If those 4 Regions had been maintained, we would still have Regionalism on return to civil rule because it would have been the frsmework of 4 Regions that politicians would have had to work with. Maybe we may have had more Regions by now but we would have still had Regionalism

That act by Gowon of abolishing the 4 Regions and creating 12 states is what brought us to where we are today. All the 36 states of Nigeria were military creations, not one was created by civilians. And it all started with Gowon.

Of course your disease of lack of comprehension remains untreated or else how does the clear use of the word "supposedly" translate to the outright claim that Ironsi announced verbatim that he came to restore civilian rule?
And if he did not come to restore civil rule as you claim on his behalf, then what more vindication do people like us need for our belief that he came to entrench Igbo agenda and was actually the hand of Esau behind the Nzeogwu coup?
See how you contradict yourself shamelessly? What mission other than a return to civil rule should any sincere soldier have for foiling a coup? In your vile attempts to justify Ironsi's introduction of military rule you have shot yourself in the foot and indicted him of sinister motives.

You are a jellyfish.
Where and when was it claimed by me that Ironsi ousted Nzeogwu and co, so that he could return power to the civilians.
Where did you get this your "supposedly" from, let me guess, from your degraded brain cells?

So what agenda did Gowon come to entrench by not handing over to Dipcharima, as you expected Ironsi to do. Oh let me guess, this handing over to Dipcharima thing is only reserved for Ironsi, right?
Mpama!

Exactly, what other purpose other than returning power to civilian Government should Gowon have for ousting Ironsi for not handing over to Dipcharima?

You see, you are brainless and cursed not to use your brains for once.

gidgiddy:


Ironsi took over power in tumultuous times. The Primeminister was dead, two Regional premiers (Akintola and the Sarduana) were dead, the president was out of the country, most of the political elite had taken flight and half of the country was in Nzeogwus hands. I dont see how Ironsi could have handed over power to anyone in that chaotic situation. But it is possible thst Ironsi used the confusion of the time to sieze power.

Anyone is wrong in saying was that it was Ironsi who caused true federalism to go away. No matter what Ironsi did, he did not abolish the 4 Regions. If those 4 Regions had been maintained, we would still have Regionalism on return to civil rule because it would have been the frsmework of 4 Regions that politicians would have had to work with. Maybe we may have had more Regions by now but we would have still had Regionalism

That act by Gowon of abolishing the 4 Regions and creating 12 states is what brought us to where we are today. All the 36 states of Nigeria were military creations, not one was created by civilians. And it all started with Gowon.

Gowon's creation of states was accompanied with the return of their civil services to them. Ironsi on the other hand centralized the civil service thus effectively centralizing all regional powers.
In the UK where they practice unitary system they have regions but which are very weak compared with the center. So the mere existence of regions does not automatically translate to federalism. It is degree to which those regions are autonomous that says whether there is federalism or not. Ironsi initially left the regions but reduced their autonomy to zero, and then later on erased their boundaries and replaced them with 35 weak provinces which were to be reporting to the center.

.You are a shameless revisionist. In one sentence you claim Ironsi foiled the coup, yet in another you claim Nzeogwu and Ifeajuna had already taken power. Who takes over power through a foiled coup? What you smoke is very powerful. Did Ifeajuna take power from the Ghana he escaped to? Your lies give you away obviously. I have never seen a person as unintelligent as yourself. Do you check the coherence of your messages at all before pasting them?

Once a jellyfish, always a jellyfish.

Was there any civilian government functionality in place when Ironsi took over?
Zik was on the run, Balewa dead, Saraduna dead, Akintola dead.
Ironsi foiled Nzeogwu and co, and took power from them.
It was like a coup within a coup.

The Civilians were hoping to bounce back to power through Dipcharima, Ironsi foiled that.

You need a brain for real, even a goat brain would do.

Deadlytruth:


Gowon's creation of states was accompanied with the return of their civil services to them. Ironsi on the other hand centralized the civil service thus effectively centralizing all regional powers.
In the UK where they practice unitary system they have regions but which are very weak compared with the center. So the mere existence of regions does not automatically translate to federalism. It is degree to which those regions are autonomous that says whether there is federalism or not. Ironsi initially left the regions but reduced their autonomy to zero, and then later on erased their boundaries and replaced them with 35 weak provinces which were to be reporting to the center.

Gowon needed not create states.
All he needed to do was hand over to Dipcharima, and insist Ojukwu handed over to civilians.

Isn't this what you wanted Ironsi to do?

Why are you not demanding same from Gowon?

pazienza:
Of course your disease of lack of comprehension remains untreated or else how does the clear use of the word "supposedly" translate to the outright claim that Ironsi announced verbatim that he came to restore civilian rule?
And if he did not come to restore civil rule as you claim on his behalf, then what more vindication do people like us need for our belief that he came to entrench Igbo agenda and was actually the hand of Esau behind the Nzeogwu coup?
See how you contradict yourself shamelessly? What mission other than a return to civil rule should any sincere soldier have for foiling a coup? In your vile attempts to justify Ironsi's introduction of military rule you have shot yourself in the foot and indicted him of sinister motives.

You are a jellyfish.
Where and when was it claimed by me that Ironsi ousted Nzeogwu and co, so that he could return power to the civilians.
Where did you get this your "supposedly" from, let me guess, from your degraded brain cells?

So what agenda did Gowon come to entrench by not handing over to Dipcharima, as you expected Ironsi to do. Oh let me guess, this handing over to Dipcharima thing is only reserved for Ironsi, right?
Mpama!

Exactly, what other purpose other than returning power to civilian Government should Gowon have for ousting Ironsi for not handing over to Dipcharima?

You see, you are brainless and cursed not to use your brains for once.

Go back and read your comments to see where you asked whether Ironsi told me he came to restore civil rule. Inconsistent clown.

Like I have said already, answer the question as to why Ironsi introduced military rule before we talk of Gowon who kicked him out for fear of perceived Igbo hegemony entrenchment. Incoherent and self contradictory clown lacking basic compression ability.

pazienza:


Gowon needed not create states.
All he needed to do was hand over to Dipcharima, and insist Ojukwu handed over to civilians.

Isn't this what you wanted Ironsi to do?

Why are you not demanding same from Gowon?

If Ironsi had done that, Gowon would not have ever risen to power hence the question of him doing it would not have arisen. .Why did Ironsi refuse to do it so that the likes of Gowon would not have later come to power? This is the question you have been avoiding like a plague. Answer it if you are sincere!

Rather than prove it wrong that Ojukwu's irrational intransigence kept Gowon in power and prevented him from completing his restoration mission you keep regurgitating the questions for which that was given as answer. You speak like a broken record

Tormented soul.

So, it was "Ojukwu irrational intransigence", that stopped Gowon from handing over to Dipcharima in 1970, dissolving his abominations called states, and returning back to the barracks as a soldier, but instead, he clung to power as a military dictator, until another coup swept him off.

You really are a demonic being.

pazienza:
Rather than prove it wrong that Ojukwu's irrational intransigence kept Gowon in power and prevented him from completing his restoration mission you keep regurgitating the questions for which that was given as answer. You speak like a broken record

Tormented soul.

So, it was "Ojukwu irrational intransigence", that stopped Gowon from handing over to Dipcharima in 1970, dissolving his abominations called states, and returning back to the barracks as a soldier, but instead, he clung to power as a military dictator, until another coup swept him off.

You really are a demonic being.

If Ironsi had done the needful, Gowon would not have ever come to power. Why did Ironsi refuse to do the needful? Simple question!

You are as demonic as the Ironsi who introduced military rule and unitary system and set the pace for the bastardization of our "We the people" constitution.

If Ironsi had lived by his oath to defend the Constitution irrespective of the circumstance and therefore handed power back to civilians after foiling the coup, would Gowon have ever come to power let alone staying that long?
Please answer this simple question if you are honest about the issue being addressed.

Deadlytruth:

If Ironsi had done the needful, Gowon would not have ever come to power. Why did Ironsi refuse to do the needful? Simple question!

This was never the bone of contention.
The bone of contention is that you present Gowon a nationalist and good, for doing the exact same thing you vilify Ironsi for.

Common sense dictates that if you think that whatever Ironsi did was wrong, you should be consistent enough to admit that Gowon had the opportunity to right Ironsi wrongs, but instead repeated and worsened them, and not for 6months like Ironsi did, but for years.

This to me should be simple enough.

pazienza:


This was never the bone of contention.
The bone of contention is that you present Gowon a nationalist and good, for doing the exact same thing you vilify Ironsi for.

Common sense dictates that if you think that whatever Ironsi did was wrong, you should be consistent enough to admit that Gowon had the opportunity to right Ironsi wrongs, but instead repeated and worsened them, and not for 6months like Ironsi did, but for years.

This to me should be simple enough.

Trash story. Have you yourself admitted that what Ironsi did was wrong? That has been the premise.
As long as Gowon dis not introduce the aberration called military rule, he remains a nationalist over Ironsi on a comparative scale. How do we address a problem genuinely when those who created it have remained in denial mode forever?
Again, if Ironsi had done what the constitution and military ethics stipulated, would Gowon have ever come to power let alone do all you accuse him of? This simple question is the starting point for any honest introspection. So answer it first before we can proceed further.
Ironsi's action was the starting point of the tragedy. So in addressing that tragedy common sense dictates that we start from the starting point.

Deadlytruth:


Trash story. Have you yourself admitted that what Ironsi did was wrong? That has been the premise.
As long as Gowon dis not introduce the aberration called military rule, he remains a nationalist over Ironsi on a comparative scale. How do we address a problem genuinely when those who created it have remained in denial mode forever?
Again, if Ironsi had done what the constitution and military ethics stipulated, would Gowon have ever come to power let alone do a you accuse him of? This simple question is the starting point for any honest introspection. So answer it first before we can proceed further.

Lol!

Still running in circles.
This is not about would have, should have, could have.

This is about what is.

You are the one who says Ironsi did wrong

And I asked for his crimes, and I was told that he refused to hand over to Dipcharima, the civilian government.

And then I was told that Gowon is good and a nationalist.

Then I asked if he handed over to Dipcharima to warrant such praises
Then I was told no, that it doesn't matter that he didn't hand over to Dipcharima, since Ironsi didn't.

And then I asked again, if not handing over to Dipcharima for 6months was a sin, and Ironsi was a sinner for being a culprit and therefore must be crucified, how then is Gowon not a sinner and a bigger culprit for not handing over to Dipcharima for 7years until he(Gowon ) was ousted, and I was told that it doesn't matter, that he is a nationalist nevertheless, handing over to Dipcharima doesn't matter, once Gowon is involved, it only matters for Ironsi, and that I mustn't question that, lest I become an enemy of the state.

And this is why and when I knew Nigeria would forever remain a failed colonial entity . For thats what happens when truth becomes treason and lies patriotism.

pazienza:


Lol!

Still running in circles.
This is not about would have, should have, could have.

This is about what is.

You are the one who says Ironsi did wrong

And I asked for his crimes, and I was told that he refused to hand over to Dipcharima, the civilian government.

And then I was told that Gowon is good and a nationalist.

Then I asked if he handed over to Dipcharima to warrant such praises
Then I was told no, that it doesn't matter that he didn't hand over to Dipcharima, since Ironsi didn't.

And then I asked again, if not handing over to Dipcharima for 6months was a sin, and Ironsi was a sinner for being a culprit and therefore must be crucified, how then is Gowon not a sinner and a bigger culprit for not handing over to Dipcharima for 7years until he(Gowon ) was ousted, and I was told that it doesn't matter, that he is a nationalist nevertheless, handing over to Dipcharima doesn't matter, once Gowon is involved, it only matters for Ironsi, and that I mustn't question that, lest I become an enemy of the state.

And this is why and when I knew Nigeria would forever remain a failed colonial entity . For thats what happens when truth becomes treason and lies patriotism.

You are the one running in circles. The 'would have' premise applies to Gowon and is itself attached to Ironsi.
The issue of paramount importance was the preservation of the constitution on which democracy was built. Unlike Ironsi who polluted and contaminated it, Gowon actually made the attempt to purify it but the circumstances under which later embattled him gave him the genuine imperative to suspend the process.
It is clear that had circumstances remained the same Gowon would have completed the reversal of Ironsi's blunder. Ironsi on the other hand had no such compelling circumstance to justify his attack on the constitution. Here lies the difference which makes Gowon a hero with Ironsi a villain.
Governance is about legitimacy and the people. During Gowon's rule the public was no longer keen on having Dipcharima sworn in as events had overtaken such In their eyes. In fact they did not at any time ask Gowon to bring back Dipcharima. They only asked him to revert to federalism and in response he actually began the process. Also he had to dump Aburi Accord when the sovereign public so advised. Gowon's rule had a democratic culture unlike Ironsi whom the sovereign public specifically asked to install Dipcharima and sent a delegation to him to demand a reversal of his centralization of power which he dishonoured under the subterfuge that such was the only way he could operate as military junta.
So can you now answer the question why Ironsi decided to introduce military rule and unitary system when the public was not complaining about the existing federal system?

The issue of paramount importance was the preservation of the constitution on which democracy was built. Unlike Ironsi who polluted and contaminated it, Gowon actually made the attempt to purify it

How so?

By creation of abominations called states?

Unlike Ironsi who polluted and contaminated it, Gowon actually made the attempt to purify it but the circumstances under which later embattled him gave him the genuine imperative to suspend the process

This is you shamelessly making up inane excuses for Gowon.

But truth remains that at no point in time did Gowon attempt to hand over power to civilian government, Dipcharima was there in 1966 when Gowon took over, he was there in 1970 when he won the war and completed his coup he started in 1966, he still was there when Gowon was booted out.
Any one can makeup excuses for not doing something they ought to do, but as long as they didn't do it, it remains undone and no amount of excuse can credit them with doing what they didn't do.

pazienza:
The issue of paramount importance was the preservation of the constitution on which democracy was built. Unlike Ironsi who polluted and contaminated it, Gowon actually made the attempt to purify it

How so?

By creation of abominations called states?

By the reversal of Ironsi's Unification and Anti-seccession Decrees.
The creation of states threw minorities into a frenzy of celebrations unlike Ironsi's Unification Decree which was greeted with riots.
Anyhow you look at it, Gowon acted in line with the people's will while Ironsi's actions were anti-people.
Only Ironsi really had the duty to defend the Constitution as it was yet intact and working the way he met it. Gowon on the other hand met a vandalised constitution which must be cleaned up first before being defended. How could Gowon have continued defending a constitution which had metamorphosed from the form he swore to defend?

pazienza:
Unlike Ironsi who polluted and contaminated it, Gowon actually made the attempt to purify it but the circumstances under which later embattled him gave him the genuine imperative to suspend the process

This is you shamelessly making up inane excuses for Gowon.

But truth remains that at no point in time did Gowon attempt to hand over power to civilian government, Dipcharima was there in 1966 when Gowon took over, he was there in 1970 when he won the war and completed his coup he started in 1966, he saw was there when Gowon was booted out.
Any one can makeup excuses for not doing something they ought to do, but as long as they didn't do it, it remains undone and no amount of excuse can credit them with doing what they didn't do.

This is you shamelessly defending Ironsi's execution of the long planned Igbo domination agenda.
As at when Gowon took over in 1966, Nigerians were no longer keen on having Dipcharima sworn in. Their earlier demand to have Dipcharima's sworn in was on the premise that he was going to continue operating with the yet-to-be-mutilated independence constitution. But Ironsi's perversion of the constitution made the Dipcharima thing lose priority to the concern of restoring the constitution first. Dipcharima could not have been sworn to operate with a unitary constitution which was alien to civilians.
At the end of the war Nigerians had begun to hope for reconciliation first and then fresh elections. Had they asked Gowon to just hand power over back to Dipcharima and Gowon turned them down as Ironsi did, then you would have had a premise for comparison.

Gowon's actions were largely based on the advice he received from the sovereign populace through their representative political leaders. So your accusations against Gowon are actually against the generality of Nigerians who with their sovereign powers decided Gowon's actions and inactions under those circumstances. Are the people no longer sovereign?
On which political leaders' unanimous advice were Ironsi's actions based? NONE!

Governance is about legitimacy and the people. During Gowon's rule the public was no longer keen on having Dipcharima sworn in as events had overtaken such In their eyes. In fact they did not at any time ask Gowon to bring back Dipcharima

How exactly can a military mutiny and dictatorship be legitimate? From whence was this legitimacy derived from, how can we ascertain the legitimacy of a military dictator with guns and soldiers at his his disposal?
How can you decide the people acceptance of Gowon mutiny except through a democratic vote?
How can Dipcharima ask to be sworn in, when even Ogundipe, who was supposedly the next in line of sucession was on the run for his life?