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.

Who are this "they" you speak of? Who elected them.
How can you shamelessly say that a military dictatorship had a democratic culture? Are you always this demonic? Even Abacha had his own hand picked oh yes civilian technocrats around him too, do those Oh yes Civilians Abacha surrounded himself with also qualify his dictatorship as near democracy, or does this your concept of sovereign public only work for Gowon?

What sovereign public do you speak of? Do you mind explaining more on this your sovereign public, Does this even make sense in military dictatorship rule ?

As a matter of fact, the more I interact with you, the more I understand how depraved the average Nigerian is, and more I'm convinced that complete severance of Igboland from Nigerians, is truly the only way to go.

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?

Not before you have answered why Ironsi not handing over to Dipcharima was an abomination, while Gowon failing to hand over to Dipcharima in 7yrs represents nationalism and patriotism to you.

Deadlytruth:


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?

All amounts to nothing, seeing as he did exactly the same deadly sin of Ironsi.
He never handed over to Dipcharima and the civilian government.
All you have done so far was try to legitimize a military dictatorship. You even labelled it as having a democratic culture.
How could he act in line with the people wish when the people wish could only be ascertained through a democratic process, and he failed to usher in democracy by handing over to Dipcharima honourably

Only Ironsi had duty to defend the constitution and probably hand over to Dipcharima? Gowon was not bound by same duties

How could Gowon have defended the constitution? Very simple: by handing over to Dipcharima, ushering the civilian government, returning back to the barracks with his boys and demanding that Ojukwu do the same.

pazienza:
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 Anf 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 secession was on the run for his life?

You obviously are ignorant of the difference between legality and legitimacy hence you use them interchangeably.

While legality is the quality of being in accordance with a law or body of laws, legitimacy is the popular acceptance and recognition by the public of the authority of a governing regime.

Ironsi's actions lacked legality and legitimacy for being against the existing body of laws and for lack of popularity respectively.

Gowon's actions on the other hand were not illegal as the constitution which formed the standard of measurement had been bastardized by his predecessor. They were also legitimate as they were all responses to popular demands. For example the creation of states was welcomed by the minorities who actually constituted and still constitute the majority when taken collectively against the WAZOBIANS who were against splitting of the regions for fear of losing their domineering grips on the minorities in their respective regions.

pazienza:


All amounts to nothing, seeing as he did exactly the same deadly sin of Ironsi.
He never handed over to Dipcharima and the civilian government.
All you have done so far was try to legitimize a military dictatorship. You even labelled it as having a democratic culture.
How could he act in line with the people wish when the people wish could only be ascertained through a democratic process, and he failed to usher in democracy by handing over to Dipcharima honourably

Only Ironsi had duty to defend the constitution and probably hand over to Dipcharima? Gowon was not bound by same duties

How could Gowon have defended the constitution? Very simple: by handing over to Dipcharima, ushering the civilian government, returning back to the barracks with his boys and demanded that Ojukwu did the same.

On the bolded, the democratic ascertainment process of Gowon's actions legitimacy was already in place in the form of the previously elected politicians whose advice he guided himself with in his actions of legislative importance and others.

Deadlytruth:


On the bolded, the democratic ascertainment process of Gowon's actions legitimacy was already in place in the form of the previously elected politicians whose advice he guided himself with in his actions of legislative importance and others.

When and how did the civilian government sit and unanimously reached a decision to anoint a military dictator?

When was this voting process done, and what was the result of the voting, because obviously, I didn't get the memo.

Deadlytruth:

You obviously are ignorant of the difference between legality and legitimacy hence you use them interchangeably.

While legality is the quality of being in accordance with a law or body of laws, legitimacy is the popular acceptance and recognition by the public of the authority of a governing regime.

Ironsi's actions lacked legality and legitimacy for being against the existing body of laws and for lack of popularity respectively.

Gowon's actions on the other hand were not illegal as the constitution which formed the standard of measurement had been bastardized by his predecessor. They were also legitimate as they were all responses to popular demands. For example the creation of states was welcomed by the minorities who actually constituted and still constitute the majority when taken collectively against the WAZOBIANS who were against splitting of the regions for fear of losing their domineering grips on the minorities in their respective regions.

How exactly did we arrive at the decision that Gowon dictatorship was a popular demand, and that the people prefered Gowon dictatorship to civilian rule?

How can we determine this popularity without a form of voting process or plebiscite? Ever heard of vocal minority before?

How can this voting have occurred with Gowon and his boys pointing gun at everyone, so much that Ogundipe fled for his life?
If Ogundipe stood no chance, what chance did the civilians stand against a military dictator as to say no to his government?

pazienza:


How exactly did we arrive at the decision that Gowon dictatorship was a popular demand, and that the people prefered Gowon dictatorship to civilian rule?

How can we determine this popularity without a form of voting process or plebiscite? Ever heard of vocal minority before?

How can this voting have occurred with Gowon and his boys pointing gun at everyone, so much that Ogundipe fled for his life?
If Ogundipe stood no chance, what chance did the civilians stand against a military dictator as to say no to his government?

The narrative is simple. Nigerian was sliding into Chaos after 1960. Young revolutionary officers under Nzeogwu struck in other to arrest the situation. Their coup untimately failed which resulted in Ironsi assuming power.

The problem anyone who wants to blame Ironsi for death of true federalism will have is that they will have to answer certain questions such as:-

1) why did ynose eho came after Ironsi not reverse whatever Ironsi did?

2) why did Gowon dismantle the 4 Constitutionally created Regions and replace the with 12 unconstitutional states?

3) Why did Gowon agree and sign a document with Ojukwu were both men agrreed to a confederation only for Gowon to return to Nigeria to insist on unitarism?

4) Ironsi was in power for just six months, Gowon was in power for 9 years. Who really should be blamed based on lenght of time in office?


The truth is that the North wanted to implement "divide and rule" so as to politically subjugate Nigeria and balkanising Nigeria into several states allowed them to do that.

pazienza:


How exactly did we arrive at the decision that Gowon dictatorship was a popular demand, and that the people prefered Gowon dictatorship to civilian rule?

How can we determine this popularity without a form of voting process or plebiscite? Ever heard of vocal minority before?

How can this voting have occurred with Gowon and his boys pointing gun at everyone, so much that Ogundipe fled for his life?
If Ogundipe stood no chance, what chance did the civilians stand against a military dictator as to say no to his government?

Legitimacy is not ascertained through electoral process or plebiscite but through public opinion consensus which is expressed actively and passively through diverse other means.

The fact that officers who did not run away were not killed or harassed destroys the point you are trying to make on Ogundipe's fleeing.

gidgiddy:


The narrative is simple. Nigerian was sliding into Chaos after 1960. Young revolutionary officers under Nzeogwu struck in other to arrest the situation. Their coup untimately failed which resulted in Ironsi assuming power.

The problem anyone who wants to blame Ironsi for death of true federalism will have is that they will have to answer certain questions such as:-

1) why did ynose eho came after Ironsi not reverse whatever Ironsi did?

2) why did Gowon dismantle the 4 Constitutionally created Regions and replace the with 12 unconstitutional states?

3) Why did Gowon agree and sign a document with Ojukwu were both men agrreed to a confederation only for Gowon to return to Nigeria to insist on unitarism?

4) Ironsi was in power for just six months, Gowon was in power for 9 years. Who really should be blamed based on lenght of time in office?


The truth is that the North wanted to implement "divide and rule" so as to politically subjugate Nigeria and balkanising Nigeria into several states allowed them to do that.

Answers:
1. Steps to reverse Ironsi's blunders had already commenced by way of the abrogation of his Unification and Anti-secession Decrees, and the re-decentralizaion of the civilian service. But Ojukwu's insistence on Confederacy conflicted with the majority's wish of a return to federalism which Gowon's steps already signalled. This conflict led to the need for Gowon to suspend his steps to deal with Ojukwu first.

2. As at the time Gowon created the 12 states, the constitution was no longer sacrosanct as it no longer reflected the people's will. Under such a circumstances the people themselves who made the constitution had to be consulted through their elected political leaders for any decision of national importance. It was the consensuses of the political leaders on behalf of the people that Gowon abided by in creating the 12 states which was legitimate on the strength of its acceptance by the minorities who collectively make up the majority over WAZOBIANS.

3. Gowon ignorantly signed a document which resulted from an illegitimate legislative summit by unelected soldiers and civilians. On return to Nigeria the people with their sovereign power advised him to dishonour that accord and he did. Are the people no longer sovereign?

4. Those to really be blamed are the Jan 15 coup plotters who toppled a democratically elected government through an unconstitutional means, and plunged the country into crisis in the first instance; and Ironsi who successfully stopped them but unfortunately took an action which did not make any difference from the what the outcome of the coup would have been if successful.

And come to think of it; the crisis which led to the problems had absolutely NOTHING to do with the constitution. It was all about which party aligned with which at the center, and then election and census rigging later. Not one, not even the Southern politicians on the receiving end of those crisis, ever asked for constitution review as a way out of the crisis. But Ironsi ignored all that background and went straight into tampering with the constitution and centralizing the civil service which was an apolitical institution by law. How did the political crisis on ground concern the civil service to warrant Ironsi's attempt to address it by restructuring the civil service?
Did that honestly make sense?
The only plausible explanation for the illogicality of Ironsi's Unification Decree and civil service restructuring was the long held suspicion of Igbo domination agenda held by Northerners. And they used all means available to them to crush it including keeping Gowon perpetually in power.
Would you really blame them therefore?
Put yourself in their shoes and see if you could have reacted differently.

Another truth is that despite being fully aware that the North had always plotted to subdue the South, Igbos choose to align with them politically against fellow Southerners at independence. But within 4 years it boomeranged explosively on Igbos and the South in general. So whose fault?

pazienza:



When and how did the civilian government sit and unanimously reached a decision to anoint a military dictator?

When was this voting process done, and what was the result of the voting, because obviously, I didn't get the memo.

Even in democracy legitimacy is acquired and not conferred by election or any formal process as such. Most Nigerian elections were rigged thus produced illegal regimes, but along the line some acquired legitimacy by taking decisions backed by popular support. Legalism usually gives way to legitimacy in all human affairs.

Deadlytruth:



Answers:
1. Steps to reverse Ironsi's blunders had already commenced by way of the abrogation of his Unification and Anti-secession Decrees, and the re-decentralizaion of the civilian service. But Ojukwu's insistence on Confederacy conflicted with the majority's wish of a return to federalism which Gowon's steps already signalled. This conflict led to the need for Gowon to suspend his steps to deal with Ojukwu first.

2. As at the time Gowon created the 12 states, the constitution was no longer sacrosanct as it no longer reflected the people's will. Under such a circumstances the people themselves who made the constitution had to be consulted through their elected political leaders for any decision of national importance. It was the consensuses of the political leaders on behalf of the people that Gowon abided by in creating the 12 states which was legitimate on the strength of its acceptance by the minorities who collectively make up the majority over WAZOBIANS.

3. Gowon ignorantly signed a document which resulted from an illegitimate legislative summit by unelected soldiers and civilians. On return to Nigeria the people with their sovereign power advised him to dishonour that accord and he did. Are the people no longer sovereign?

4. Those to really be blamed are the Jan 15 coup plotters who toppled a democratically elected government through an unconstitutional means, and plunged the country into crisis in the first instance; and Ironsi who successfully stopped them but unfortunately took an action which did not make any difference from the what the outcome of the coup would have been if successful.

And come to think of it; the crisis which led to the problems had absolutely NOTHING to do with the constitution. It was all about which party aligned with which at the center, and then election and census rigging later. Not one, not even the Southern politicians on the receiving end of those crisis, ever asked for constitution review as a way out of the crisis. But Ironsi ignored all that background and went straight into tampering with the constitution and centralizing the civil service which was an apolitical institution by law. How did the political crisis on ground concern the civil service to warrant Ironsi's attempt to address it by restructuring the civil service?
Did that honestly make sense?
The only plausible explanation for the illogicality of Ironsi's Unification Decree and civil service restructuring was the long held suspicion of Igbo domination agenda held by Northerners. And they used all means available to them to crush it including keeping Gowon perpetually in power.
Would you really blame them therefore?
Put yourself in their shoes and see if you could have reacted differently.

Another truth is that despite being fully aware that the North had always plotted to subdue the South, Igbos choose to align with them politically against fellow Southerners at independence. But within 4 years it boomeranged explosively on Igbos and the South in general. So whose fault?

You dont make any sense.

First is that you complain thatt Ironsi introduced unitary rule but you say that that Gowon that created 12 unitary state was acting for majority of thr people? So that mesns that majority of the people were ok with Ito di s8nce they were hsppy eith Gowon.

So you know that Gowon who signed the agreement with Ojukwu was not an elected official yet you support the same unelected Gowon to act unbehalf of people who never elected him, and go to abolish 4 Regions that were created by law and replace them 12 states created by military decree. Since when do unelected people act on behalf of the majority of the people? Did Ironsi or Gowon have any mandate to act for anyone? So, if you must condemn Ironsi, then condemn Gowon too since both men had no mandate to be head of state.

You are not mature enough to discuss Nigerian history and Politics. You should spend more in in the other sections, Politics is serious business

gidgiddy:


You dont make any sense.

First is that you complain thatt Ironsi introduced unitary rule but you say that that Gowon that created 12 unitary state was acting for majority of thr people? So that mesns that majority of the people were ok with Ito di s8nce they were hsppy eith Gowon.

So you know that Gowon who signed the agreement with Ojukwu was not an elected official yet you support the same unelected Gowon to act unbehalf of people who never elected him, and go to abolish 4 Regions that were created by law and replace them 12 states created by military decree. Since when do unelected people act on behalf of the majority of the people? Did Ironsi or Gowon have any mandate to act for anyone? So, if you must condemn Ironsi, then condemn Gowon too since both men had no mandate to be head of state.

You are not mature enough to discuss Nigerian history and Politics. You should spend more in in the other sections, Politics is serious business

Lack of maturity is evidenced by tantrums throwing which you are the one guilty of here. Why not just make your point and counter your opponent's with a superior one?

On the strength of the fact that Ironsi's government made unpopular policies and introduced the distortion of the constitution and ignored the cries of the public to leave it intact, Gowon's regime became legitimate for listening to the public's demands and granting them.
Is this too difficult to understand?
Had Ironsi heeded the advice to leave the constitution alone and punish the January coupists, his government would have acquired legitimacy even though he too was unelected.
Recall that after he turned down the MPs' demand for Dipcharima's installation, the public still sent him a delegation telling him they would not mind his rejection of Dipcharima provided he punished the coupists and reversed his Unification and Anti-secession Decrees and reversed his centralization of the civil service.
All these mean he was offered several concession and chances to legitimize his government but he refused out of arrogance.
Can you mention any single public advice which Ironsi accepted to work with?
I mean just one!

Gowon on the other hand had many to his credit and that made the difference.

Examples are his undoing of Ironsi's Unification and Anti-secession Decrees as demand by the public, his creation of more subnational units which the actual minority (WAZOBIANS) had denied the majority (the non-WAZOBIANS collectively) in the previous regional arrangement, his reneging on Aburi Accord as advised by the elected representative political leaders of the various constituencies, his release of Enahoro, Isaac Boro and all other political prisoners on the advice of the public, etc. Even Azikiwe, the Igbos elected representative leader, was among those who advised Gowon.
Such a government automatically made itself qualified to act on the people's behalf under that circumstances when the reliability of the constitution had become a subject of controversy, and elections were not practically possible against the momentary odds.

Deadlytruth:


Legitimacy is not ascertained through electoral process or plebiscite but through public opinion consensus which is expressed actively and passively through diverse other means.

The fact that officers who did not run away were not killed or harassed destroys the point you are trying to make on Ogundipe's fleeing.

Diverse means such as?

Officers who stayed were those who posed no danger or threat to Gowon ascendancy and those who became loyal to him.
Ogundipe by the virtue of his place as the next in line to Ironsi, was already a threat to Gowon.

He knew that, and rightly fled.

Dipcharima only had an option, which was keep his mouth shut and never talk about being sworn in, which in effect would mean over throwing Gowon. His only option was to support Gowon or also flee like Ogundipe did.
This is common sense.

Deadlytruth:


Even in democracy legitimacy is acquired and not conferred by election or any formal process as such. Most Nigerian elections were rigged thus produced illegal regimes, but along the line some acquired legitimacy by taking decisions backed by popular support. Legalism usually gives way to legitimacy in all human affairs.

Lol! Legitimacy is acquired via elections in civilian rule. It's as simple as that.
There is no way of proving they were rigged, it's often the opinion of rival groups, and if the rival group could prove the election was rigged, the rigged candidate loses legitimacy and is forced to give way. We had already seen this in Oshiomhole and Osunbor case, and Chris Ngige and Peter Obi case.

Ngige own is even noteworthy, as even though he gained the goodwill of the people when he reigned as the governor, that alone didn't confer him legitimacy, as he was deposed the moment it was proved by Peter Obi in the law court that he was rigged into office.

So, No, an election is not rigged because a group of people says so, it's rigged if it could be proved in court of law, using the constitution, which represents the will of the people.

So, your attempt at legitimizing a military dictator, while dismissing civilian regimes as fall out of rigged election is distressing and could have only come from a demonic mindset.

Bottom line is that you can't build something out of nothing.
You can't come to power through undemocratic means, and now claim because a vocal minority ( remember that the only way we can prove the dictator had the majority support, was via election, which is a democratic process, he already gatecrashed) were singing your praises, your government is now legitimate and a democracy.

What you suggest is madness, and it's from this stream of thought process that Nigeria failed.

pazienza:



Lol! Legitimacy is acquired via elections in civilian rule. It's as simple as that.
There is no way of proving they were rigged, it's often the opinion of rival groups, and if the rival group could prove the election was rigged, the rigged candidate loses legitimacy and is forced to give way. We had already seen this in Oshiomhole and Osunbor case, and Chris Ngige and Peter Obi case.

Ngige own is even noteworthy, as even though he gained the goodwill of the people when he reigned as the governor, that alone didn't confer him legitimacy, as he was deposed the moment it was proved by Peter Obi in the law court that he was rigged into office.

So, No, an election is not rigged because a group of people says so, it's rigged if it could be proved in court of law, using the constitution, which represents the will of the people.

So, your attempt at legitimizing a military dictator, while dismissing civilian regimes as fall out of rigged election is distressing and could have only come from a demonic mindset.

Bottom line is that you can't build something out of nothing.
You can't come to power through undemocratic means, and now claim because a vocal minority ( remember that the only way we can prove the dictator had the majority support, was via election, which is a democratic process, he already gatecrashed) were singing your praises, your government is now legitimate and a democracy.

What you suggest is madness, and it's from this stream of thought process that Nigeria failed.

Legitimacy is not acquired through election in military rule which Gowon's and Ironsi's regimes were examples of. And that simply cuts it. A military rule seeks legitimacy by wearing a democratic culture founded on positive disposition to the will of the people.
Contrary to your claim, the readiness of a rival party to prove rigging beyond doubt could be forestalled by the courts either through technicalities or through sheer bias. Under such a case the candidate who wins the litigation will still remain an illegal one. It happened when the courts refused to admit Atiku's video tape evidences of massive rigging and the fraudulent printing of the ballot papers in South Africa solely on the grounds that it would not do the country's image any good.
Also situations in which the judiciary was later discovered to have been bribed into perversion of Justice would clearly confer illegality on the regime even if in retrospect. So establishing legality through the courts could be indeterminate.

Constitutions are made for the people and not people for the constitution, hence the people have the power to disregard adherence to it under an emergency situation which demands public opinion as guide. When the emergency 'need' came for Ojukwu to declare Biafra based on the Eastern Regional Assembly consensus, he as a Nigerian, disregarded the fact that the constitution had no provision for secession and went ahead.
So your perception that humans must be slaves of their own constitution could only have come from the insanity founded on the demonic and slavish mindset occasioned by the failed system of Nigeria.

Under an emergency situation where the constitution has been rendered useless, elections can't be conducted to measure legitimacy since the document guiding the process is no longer tenable. Therefore a military government which topples an unpopular one that has raped and distorted the constitution does not have to acquire legitimacy through an election guided by that very constitution illegally and criminally amended by its predecessor regime.

Legitimacy is not acquired through election in military rule which Gowon's and Ironsi's regimes were examples of. And that simply cuts it.


You can't put military rule and legitimacy on the same sentence, especially one that had no intention of returning power to civilians.
A military dictator rules by decrees made by himself and his cohorts, how can you justify the legitimacy of that, are you sick?

A military rule seeks legitimacy by wearing a democratic culture founded on positive disposition to the will of the people.


A military rule can't have a democratic culture.
Military rule contradicts every tenet of democracy. It has no room for check and balances or opposition, so once again, you are digging your grave with the above, just stop already.

Contrary to your claim, the readiness of a rival party to prove rigging beyond doubt could be forestalled by the courts either through technicalities or through sheer bias

This is only but the view of the opposition.
The forestalling can only be done within the ambit of the constitution , the onus is on the opposition to pursue the case to a logical conclusion, under the same constitutional constraints, exploiting every available loopholes.

pazienza:
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.

Who are this "they" you speak of? Who elected them.
How can you shamelessly say that a military dictatorship had a democratic culture? Are you always this demonic? Even Abacha had his own hand picked oh yes civilian technocrats around him too, do those Oh yes Civilians Abacha surrounded himself with also qualify his dictatorship as near democracy, or does this your concept of sovereign public only work for Gowon?

What sovereign public do you speak of? Do you mind explaining more on this your sovereign public, Does this even make sense in military dictatorship rule ?

As a matter of fact, the more I interact with you, the more I understand how depraved the average Nigerian is, and more I'm convinced that complete severance of Igboland from Nigerians, is truly the only way to go.

You are just a plain stupid bigot reeling from broken tribal ego. The same you and your shameless likes have always accused Enahoro, Awolowo and other politicians of being representative of their respective tribes' interest in instigating Gowon to renege on Aburi Accord, create states, etc. I guess Awolowo, Enahoro, and their
equivalents from other tribes were unelected Parliamentarians in your confused and dementia stricken thoughts, yet they acted on behalf of their people to "betray" Igbos? Inconsistent clowns!
Even Zik, your overall elected representative leader was among those who guided Gowon in the later days.
If allowing himself to be guided by elected political leaders does not confer on his government a connection to the sovereign will of the people in your puerile perception, then you lack the basic knowledge of representative governance.
When it is convenient for you, you claim that Awolowo, Enahoro and other elected political leaders were representing their tribes when they "betrayed" Igbos by guiding Gowon on appropriate steps to take in frustrating Biafra. But when it does not suit your narrative in other debates you tend to argue that these political figures did not represent their tribes and people. Shameless turncoats who can't maintain a single line of thought.

You claim you are getting more convinced that the severance of Igbo land from Nigeria is the only way to go but ironically the Azikiwe whose antecedents kept you glued to Nigeria remains your hero. Your self mockery and hypocrisy are simply pathetic and beyond salvage.

Each time I engage you I get more convinced that the average Igbo man's logical inconsistency is the very root of the failure of Nigeria.
Check it: Ojukwu initially justified and defended extreme centralization of power under Ironsi's rule, but with Ironsi out he overnight became a strong believer and apostle of the most decentralized system. Jumping from one ideological extreme to the other.
Zik: Initially invented the idea that the unity of Nigeria was non-negotiable when it appeared that the gods of his tribe would give them power to dominate the obvious contraption, but few years later when it began to appear that the reverse was actually the case, he became an advocate of "separating in peace rather than in pieces".
The same Zik, while Biafra project appeared realizable in the beginning, saw nothing wrong in Ojukwu's style of leadership, but once hopes dimmed irreversibly, Ojukwu's leadership style immediately became arrogant and ego centric.
The same traits of inconsistecy you exhibit here.
However you lots are not really ready to exit Nigeria otherwise you know the right and most effective step to take. Simply ask your kinsman DSP to sponsor a referendum bill and he will get the support of the entire Southern and Middle Beltern colleagues which constitute majority collectively.

naijaking1:
I am baffled that after 40 years of sober reflection, people still think that Adaka Boro was an angel. He was not, he was a common criminal. People who eulogize him today, despite the current deplorable state of affairs in the Niger delta ought to be ashamed of themselves. He aligned with hausa people against his own eastern Nigerian brothers, well, the result is better imagined by what's going on in the ND today. Like Ken Saro Wiwa, Boro fought against his Biafran brothers, but unlike Wiwa he did not have an opportunity to apologize for his actions, because he was mowed down by the same very people he supported in preference to his brothers.
Yes, he was young, he was militant, but that didn't make it right to betray his own people. If he is alive today, I don't think he would very proud of his youthful exhubarance and inexperience against his people. Why don't we remember the truely great former eastern Nigerians like Okoi Arikpo, Eni Njoku, Margaret Ekpo, and Okoko Ndem, etc. When did betraying your own family become an attribute

You Igbos blame everyone else for your woes except yourselves - We have repeatedly told you , the day your Biafra madness will start all over again we will fight on the side of Nigeria and annihilate your miserable uncultured people forever.

Mark my words.

Deadlytruth:


You are just a plain stupid bigot reeling from broken tribal ego. The same you and your shameless likes have always accused Enahoro, Awolowo and other politicians of being representative of their respective tribes' interest in instigating Gowon to renege on Aburi Accord, create states, etc. I guess Awolowo, Enahoro, and their w
equivalents from other tribes were unelected Parliamentarians in your confused and dementia stricken thoughts, yet they acted on behalf of their people to "betray" Igbos? Inconsistent clowns!
Even Zik, your overall elected representative leader was among those who guided Gowon.
If allowing himself being guided by elected political leaders does not confer on his government a connection to the sovereign will of the people in your puerile perception, then you lack the basic knowledge of representative governance.

You claim you are getting more convinced that the severance of Igbo land from Nigeria is the only way to go but ironically the Azikiwe whose antecedents kept you glued to Nigeria remains your hero. Your self mockery and hypocrisy are simply pathetic and beyond salvage.

Again, when cornered, he throws up unrelated matters to the present argument, just to prolong things and create a diversion.
Notice how you had been throwing the eastern minorities issue around hoping to create a diversion. But I totally ignored you.

Gowon government lacked legitimacy, it was a dictatorship that ruled by decrees.

A dictatorship is a dictatorship and can never have any semblance to Democracy

Ironsi was duty bound to return power to Dipcharima and re establish the constitution you say, well if that be so,then Gowon, who unlike Ironsi, had 7years plus to do this, but never even gave it a try was more duty bound to do same.

If Ironsi committed sin by not handing over to Dipcharima in 6months, Gowon committed 7times that, by not doing same in 7yearsplus.

You had so far failed to prove the legitimacy of Gowon dictatorship, you were so desperate that you had to sink to the gutters of ascribing democratic tones to it, and went further to malign democratic processes just to justify a dictatorship.

Truckpusher:
You Igbos blame everyone else for your woes except yourselves - We have repeatedly told you , the day your Biafra madness will start all over again we will fight on the side of Nigeria and annihilate your miserable uncultured people forever.

Mark my words.

Haven't you tried that already and failed?

Your words are meaningless, and nothing more than what Ndiigbo hear on daily basis, what made you think we have time to mark such words that get repeated like a million times on daily basis?

pazienza:



Again, when cornered, he throws up unrelated matters to the present argument, just to prolong things and create a diversion.
Notice how you had been throwing the eastern minorities issue around hoping to create a diversion. But I totally ignored you.

Gowon government lacked legitimacy, it was a dictatorship that ruled by decrees.

A dictatorship is a dictatorship and can never have any semblance to Democracy

Ironsi was duty bound to return power to Dipcharima and re establish the constitution you say, well if that be so,then Gowon, who unlike Ironsi, had 7years plus to do this, but never even gave it a try was more duty bound to do same.

If Ironsi committed sin by not handing over to Dipcharima in 6months, Gowon committed 7times that, by not doing same in 7yearsplus.

So my mention of the representative status of Enahoro, Awolowo, Azikiw and their likes to their respective regions and tribes in response to your own "who are these people" question is now an unrelated issue? You are indeed terribly inconsistent. I have never seen anyone as dubious as you. Who cornered who in actual fact?

When have I specifically mentioned "Eastern Minorities" here now to warrant the bolded? You are such a shameless liar. You are rather the one cornered and throwing up Eastern Minorities to divert attention from that.

According to dictionaries' definition of the term, Gowon's government had several trappings of legitimacy while Ironsi's did not have any.
It is therefore your burden to rewrite the dictionary.

The sovereign public specifically asked Ironsi to hand over power to Dipcharima and he declined.
Same can't be said of Gowon as during his regime the public no longer deemed it fit let alone ask him to do same.
The duration of his tenure is immaterial. If duration matters, then where and how exactly do you place the dividing line between 'too long" and "too short"?
There lies the difference. Governance is about the people's will expressed through the constitution, or through public consensus where the constitution has lost authenticity as the people's will.

pazienza:


Haven't you tried that already and failed?

Your words are meaningless, and nothing more than what Ndiigbo hear on daily basis, what made you think we have time to mark such words that get repeated like a million times on daily basis?

An example of those you call the Eastern Minorities has called you out and spoken to you clearly. I guess I am the one who threw him up here as you have always hoodwinked yourself to believe?
What you keep failing to realize is that Southern non-Wazobians, otherwise called Southern minorities, have come to share the common identity of the oppressed status by WAZOBIANS, and this identity has permanently inspired solidarity among them across the Niger which no force or propaganda can undo until their economic oppression by the WAZOBIA ruling establishment is eradicated.

Truckpusher:
You Igbos blame everyone else for your woes except yourselves - We have repeatedly told you , the day your Biafra madness will start all over again we will fight on the side of Nigeria and annihilate your miserable uncultured people forever.

Mark my words.

You will annihilate who? Because our hands are broken? You guys should watch the kind of statements you make on the internet. History is there to be rewritten. You think because you fought on the side of Nigeria and had your own share ofbthe bounty, that thinga will remain rosy. Ngwa, continue.