Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,159,290 members, 7,839,431 topics. Date: Friday, 24 May 2024 at 07:03 PM

Pre-biafra War: Obafemi Awolowo’s Speech To Western Nigeria Leaders Of Thought - Politics (5) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Pre-biafra War: Obafemi Awolowo’s Speech To Western Nigeria Leaders Of Thought (12268 Views)

Nnamdi Kanu Not A South East Leader Of Thought- Presidency / Hief Awolowo’s Speech To Western Leaders Of Thought In Ibadan On MAY 1 1967 / Pre-biafra War: Obafemi Awolowo’s Speech To Western Leaders Of Thought (pic). (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Pre-biafra War: Obafemi Awolowo’s Speech To Western Nigeria Leaders Of Thought by davodyguy: 3:17pm On Jul 12, 2018
cptfash:
the igbos are terrible people,they blame others for their woes caused by them.
too egoistic a tribe filled with hubris,they want to claim everything,monopolise their own and claim others.let it be know dat problems nigeria are having today are cauqtsed by them.igbos caused d first and second coup,ZIK wanted to become d western premier,he wanted to rule nigeria and africa as a whole,he mentioned it in one of his to some igbos caucus in d parliament lagos dat IT WILL ONLY TAKE A FEW TIME WHEN THE GOD OF IBOS WILL MAKE THEM DOMINATE NIGERIA AND AFRICA AS A WHOLE because they were given free hands in d western region then,he quickly and always team up with d northerners to spite awolowo and achieve his aims.ZIK arm-twisted d north in 1953 when d north said they will stay out dat they were not ready for nigeria independence because he wanted to rule a large entity nigeria etc,
when d winds of political leadership changed direction from them ojukwu for his greed and empty pride said he wanted biafra because he senior GOWON and because of oil,meanwhile when ezeougu kaduna was killed d next in command to him was an hausa from bornu bt because igbo were d majority in top echelon of d army then replaced kaduna ezeougu witi agunyi ironsi dat was less in rank to dat borno man now wen it got to Gowon time ojukwu started crying dat gowon cant be d head of d supreme millitary government.when adaka boro wanted ijaw to secede from naija because of oil Agunyi ironsi led govt fought him to standstill within few days bt ojukwo wanted to secede because ibo man was nt in govt charge.in drafting 1953 constitution awolowo suggested a clause dat IF ANY STATE/REGION/MEMBER OF D UNION CALLED NIGERIA D REGION CAN PULL OUT OR SECEDE but Azikwe tackle d submission dat DIS UNION NIGERIA IS INDISSOLVABLE DAT D UNION IS FOR LIFE which earned him nickname ZIK OF AFRICA,FOUNDER OF ONE NIGERIA meanwhile awolowo had d foresight then but ZIK greed and unholy alliance wit hausa blinded him now his people are label treasoners because they want secesion
Re: Pre-biafra War: Obafemi Awolowo’s Speech To Western Nigeria Leaders Of Thought by orisa37: 7:15pm On Jul 12, 2018
davodyguy:
By Uhuru Times on May 12, 2016 No Comment

By Obafemi Awolowo

The aim of a leader should be the welfare of the people whom he leads. I have used ‘welfare’ to denote the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of the people. With this aim fixed unflinchingly and unchangeably before my eyes I consider it my duty to Yoruba people in particular and to Nigerians in general, to place four imperatives before you this morning. Two of them are categorical and two are conditional. Only a peaceful solution must be found to arrest the present worsening stalemate and restore normalcy. The Eastern Region must be encouraged to remain part of the Federation. If the Eastern Region is allowed by acts of omission or commission to secede from or opt out of Nigeria, then the Western Region and Lagos must also stay out of the Federation. The people of Western Nigeria and Lagos should participate in the ad hoc committee or any similar body only on the basis of absolute equality with the other regions of the Federation.

I would like to comment briefly on these four imperatives. There has, of late, been a good deal of sabre rattling in some parts of the country. Those who advocate the use force for the settlement of our present problems should stop a little and reflect. I can see no vital and abiding principle involved in any war between the North and the East. If the East attacked the North, it would be for purpose of revenge pure and simple. Any claim to the contrary would be untenable. If it is claimed that such a war is being waged for the purpose of recovering the real and personal properties left behind in the North by Easterners two insuperable points are obvious. Firstly, the personal effects left behind by Easterners have been wholly looted or destroyed, and can no longer be physically recovered. Secondly, since the real properties are immovable in case of recovery of them can only be by means of forcible military occupation of those parts of the North in which these properties are situated. On the other hand, if the North attacked the East, it could only be for the purpose of further strengthening and entrenching its position of dominance in the country.

If it is claimed that an attack on the East is going to be launched by the Federal Government and not by the North as such and that it is designed to ensure the unity and integrity of the Federation, two other insuperable points also become obvious. First, if a war against the East becomes a necessity it must be agreed to unanimously by the remaining units of the Federation. In this connection, the West, Mid- West and Lagos have declared their implacable opposition to the use of force in solving the present problem. In the face of such declarations by three out of remaining four territories of Nigeria, a war against the East could only be a war favoured by the North alone. Second, if the true purpose of such a war is to preserve the unity and integrity of the Federation, then these ends can be achieved by the very simple devices of implementing the recommendation of the committee which met on August 9 1966, as reaffirmed by a decision of the military leaders at Aburi on January 5 1967 as well as by accepting such of the demands of the East, West, Mid-West and Lagos as are manifestly reasonable, and essential for assuring harmonious relationships and peaceful co-existence between them and their brothers and sisters in the North.

Some knowledgeable persons have likened an attack on the East to Lincoln’s war against the southern states in America. Two vital factors distinguish Lincoln’s campaign from the one now being contemplated in Nigeria. The first is that the American civil war was aimed at the abolition of slavery – that is the liberation of millions of Negroes who were then still being used as chattels and worse than domestic animals. The second factor is that Lincoln and others in the northern states were English-speaking people waging a war of good conscience and humanity against their fellow nationals who were also English speaking. A war against the East in which Northern soldiers are predominant, will only unite the Easterners or the Ibos against their attackers, strengthen them in their belief that they are not wanted by the majority of their fellow-Nigerians, and finally push them out of the Federation.

We have been told that an act of secession on the part of the East would be a signal, in the first instance, for the creation of the COR state by decree, which would be backed, if need be, by the use of force. With great respect, I have some dissenting observations to make on this declaration. There are 11 national or linguistic groups in the COR areas with a total population of 5.3 millions. These national groups are as distinct from one another as the Ibos are distinct from them or from the Yorubas or Hausas. Of the 11, the Efik/Ibibio/Annang national group are 3.2 million strong as against the Ijaws who are only about 700,000 strong. Ostensibly, the remaining nine national group number 1.4 millions. But when you have subtracted the Ibo inhabitants from among them, what is left ranges from the Ngennis who number only 8,000 to the Ogonis who are 220,000 strong. A decree creating a COR state without a plebiscite to ascertain the wishes of the peoples in the area, would only amount to subordinating the minority national groups in the state to the dominance of the Efik/Ibibio/Annang national group. It would be perfectly in order to create a Calabar state or a Rivers state by decree, and without a plebiscite. Each is a homogeneous national unit. But before you lump distinct and diverse national units together in one state, the consent of each of them is indispensable. Otherwise, the seed of social disquilibrium in the new state would have been sown.

On the other hand, if the COR State is created by decree after the Eastern Region shall have made its severance from Nigeria effective, we should then be waging an unjust war against a foreign state. It would be an unjust war, because the purpose of it would be to remove 10 minorities in the East from the dominance of the Ibos only to subordinate them to the dominance of the Efik/Ibibio/Annang national group. I think I have said enough to demonstrate that any war against the East, or vice versa, on any count whatsoever, would be an unholy crusade, for which it would be most unjustifiable to shed a drop of Nigerian blood. Therefore, only a peaceful solution must be found, and quickly too to arrest the present rapidly deteriorating stalemate and restore normalcy.

With regard to the second categorical imperative, it is my considered view that whilst some of the demands of the East are excessive within the context of a Nigerian union, most of such demands are not only well-founded, but are designed for smooth and steady association amongst the various national units of Nigeria.

The dependence of the Federal Government on financial contributions from the regions? These and other such like demands I do not support. Demands such as these, if accepted, will lead surely to the complete disintegration of the Federation which is not in the interest of our people. But I wholeheartedly support the following demands among others, which we consider reasonable and most of which are already embodied in our memoranda to the Ad Hoc Committee….

That revenue should be allocated strictly on the basis of derivation; that is to say after the Federal Government has deducted its own share for its own services the rest should be allocated to the regions to which they are attributable.

That the existing public debt of the Federation should become the responsibility of the regions on the basis of the location of the projects in respect of each debt whether internal or external.

That each region should have and control its own militia and police force.

That, with immediate effect, all military personnel should be posted to their regions of origin….


If we are to live in harmony one with another as Nigerians it is imperative that these demands and others which are not related, should be met without further delay by those who have hitherto resisted them. To those who may argue that the acceptance of these demands will amount to transforming Nigeria into a federation with a weak central government, my comment is that any link however tenuous, which keeps the East in the Nigerian union, is better in my view than no link at all.

Before the Western delegates went to Lagos to attend the meetings of the ad hoc committee, they were given a clear mandate that if any region should opt out of the Federation of Nigeria, then the Federation should be considered to be at an end, and that the Western Region and Lagos should also opt out of it. It would then be up to Western Nigeria and Lagos as an independent sovereign state to enter into association with any of the Nigerian units of its own choosing, and on terms mutually acceptable to them. I see no reason for departing from this mandate. If any region in Nigeria considers itself strong enough to compel us to enter into association with it on its own terms, I would only wish such a region luck. But such luck, I must warn, will, in the long run be no better than that which has attended the doings of all colonial powers down the ages. This much I must say in addition, on this point. We have neither military might nor the overwhelming advantage of numbers here in Western Nigeria and Lagos. But we have justice of a noble and imperishable cause on our side, namely: the right of a people to unfettered self-determination. If this is so, then God is on our side, and if God is with us then we have nothing whatsoever in this world to fear.

The fourth imperative, and the second conditional one has been fully dealt with in my recent letter to the Military Governor of Western Nigeria, Col. Robert Adebayo, and in the representation which your deputation made last year to the head of the Federal Military Government, Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon. As a matter of fact, as far back as November last year a smaller meeting of leaders of thought in this Region decided that unless certain things were done, we would no longer participate in the meeting of the ad hoc committee. But since then, not even one of our legitimate requests has been granted. I will, therefore, take no more of your time in making further comments on a point with which you are well familiar. As soon as our humble and earnest requests are met, I shall be ready to take my place on the ad hoc committee. But certainly, not before.

In closing, I have this piece of advice to give. In order to resolve amiably and in the best interests of all Nigerians certain attributes are required on the part of Nigerian leaders, military as well as non-military leaders alike, namely: vision, realism and unselfishness. But above all , what will keep Nigerian leaders in the North and East unwaveringly in the path of wisdom, realism and moderation is courage and steadfastness on the part of Yoruba people in the course of what they sincerely believe to be right, equitable and just. In the past five years we in the West and Lagos have shown that we possess these qualities in a large measure. If we demonstrate them again as we did in the past, calmly and heroically, we will save Nigeria from further bloodshed and imminent wreck and, at the same time, preserve our freedom and self-respect into the bargain.


May God rule and guide our deliberations here, and endow all the Nigerian leaders with the vision, realism, and unselfishness as well as courage and steadfastness in the course of truth, which the present circumstances demand.

——————–

Speech by Chief Obafemi Awolowo made to the Western leaders of thought, in Ibadan, 1 May 1967 (quoted in “Crisis and Conflict in Nigeria (Volume 1), January 1966-July 1971” by A. H. M. Kirk-Greene.

——————–

Culled from: http://ihuanedo.ning.com/group/wazobiaisalienotnigeria/forum/topics/complete-1967-awolowo-mapo-hall-speech-and-north-intimidation-of-
Re: Pre-biafra War: Obafemi Awolowo’s Speech To Western Nigeria Leaders Of Thought by Uchek(m): 1:13am On May 03, 2021
You suffer from cognitive impairment.

cptfash:
the igbos are terrible people,they blame others for their woes caused by them.
too egoistic a tribe filled with hubris,they want to claim everything,monopolise their own and claim others.let it be know dat problems nigeria are having today are cauqtsed by them.igbos caused d first and second coup,ZIK wanted to become d western premier,he wanted to rule nigeria and africa as a whole,he mentioned it in one of his to some igbos caucus in d parliament lagos dat IT WILL ONLY TAKE A FEW TIME WHEN THE GOD OF IBOS WILL MAKE THEM DOMINATE NIGERIA AND AFRICA AS A WHOLE because they were given free hands in d western region then,he quickly and always team up with d northerners to spite awolowo and achieve his aims.ZIK arm-twisted d north in 1953 when d north said they will stay out dat they were not ready for nigeria independence because he wanted to rule a large entity nigeria etc,
when d winds of political leadership changed direction from them ojukwu for his greed and empty pride said he wanted biafra because he senior GOWON and because of oil,meanwhile when ezeougu kaduna was killed d next in command to him was an hausa from bornu bt because igbo were d majority in top echelon of d army then replaced kaduna ezeougu witi agunyi ironsi dat was less in rank to dat borno man now wen it got to Gowon time ojukwu started crying dat gowon cant be d head of d supreme millitary government.when adaka boro wanted ijaw to secede from naija because of oil Agunyi ironsi led govt fought him to standstill within few days bt ojukwo wanted to secede because ibo man was nt in govt charge.in drafting 1953 constitution awolowo suggested a clause dat IF ANY STATE/REGION/MEMBER OF D UNION CALLED NIGERIA D REGION CAN PULL OUT OR SECEDE but Azikwe tackle d submission dat DIS UNION NIGERIA IS INDISSOLVABLE DAT D UNION IS FOR LIFE which earned him nickname ZIK OF AFRICA,FOUNDER OF ONE NIGERIA meanwhile awolowo had d foresight then but ZIK greed and unholy alliance wit hausa blinded him now his people are label treasoners because they want secesion
Re: Pre-biafra War: Obafemi Awolowo’s Speech To Western Nigeria Leaders Of Thought by Uchek(m): 1:17am On May 03, 2021
You suffer from debilitaron ahistorism.

[quote author=T9ksy post=45585459][/quote]
Re: Pre-biafra War: Obafemi Awolowo’s Speech To Western Nigeria Leaders Of Thought by JonDon12: 3:12am On May 03, 2021
That was a great plan by Awo. The problem was that Gowon and the northern elites were too illiterate to understand the suggestions he gave.

Also the Yoruba military did not back Awos plan which is why Ojukwu sent Banjo. Obasanjo was the military governor there and he refused to secede from the union.
Re: Pre-biafra War: Obafemi Awolowo’s Speech To Western Nigeria Leaders Of Thought by Uchek(m): 7:35pm On Jan 14, 2022
Why are you bothering yourself with the fellow. He is a Yoruba man and an average Yoruba is ahistorical - drunkenly and giddily ahistorical


pchukwudi:
[s][/s]

Young man, you are simply trying to interprete history from your current perspective without due regards to historic facts. You simply have no grasp of the facts. And your speculations do not appear so logical to me.

For starters, here are some facts and thoughts to ponder:

1. Contrary to your insinuation, the yorubas were not neutral during the war.

2. Lots of Yoruba soldiers fought on the Nigeria side, while some fought on the Biafra side.

3. The actual reason Yorubas did not alley with the easteners enmass was because of hate politics spread in the west in pre-67 elections, where akintola portrayed yorubas as economic victims to igbos whom he claimed dominated comnerce in lagos. He conviniently blamed this false yoruba victimization narative on Awolowo, who obviously was pro igbo at the time.

4. When akintola was killed during the coupe Awolowo had his chance to steer the west in the right direction but he had not the guts.

5. If the yorubas had solidly stood with the igbos on ojukwu's demands the north would not have had the morale to go into the war considering that the midwestern region was also a willing alley to the eastern region.

This is my last on this discurse.
Re: Pre-biafra War: Obafemi Awolowo’s Speech To Western Nigeria Leaders Of Thought by Idiko1: 9:59pm On Jan 14, 2022
davodyguy:
By Uhuru Times on May 12, 2016 No Comment

By Obafemi Awolowo

The aim of a leader should be the welfare of the people whom he leads. I have used ‘welfare’ to denote the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of the people. With this aim fixed unflinchingly and unchangeably before my eyes I consider it my duty to Yoruba people in particular and to Nigerians in general, to place four imperatives before you this morning. Two of them are categorical and two are conditional. Only a peaceful solution must be found to arrest the present worsening stalemate and restore normalcy. The Eastern Region must be encouraged to remain part of the Federation. If the Eastern Region is allowed by acts of omission or commission to secede from or opt out of Nigeria, then the Western Region and Lagos must also stay out of the Federation. The people of Western Nigeria and Lagos should participate in the ad hoc committee or any similar body only on the basis of absolute equality with the other regions of the Federation.

I would like to comment briefly on these four imperatives. There has, of late, been a good deal of sabre rattling in some parts of the country. Those who advocate the use force for the settlement of our present problems should stop a little and reflect. I can see no vital and abiding principle involved in any war between the North and the East. If the East attacked the North, it would be for purpose of revenge pure and simple. Any claim to the contrary would be untenable. If it is claimed that such a war is being waged for the purpose of recovering the real and personal properties left behind in the North by Easterners two insuperable points are obvious. Firstly, the personal effects left behind by Easterners have been wholly looted or destroyed, and can no longer be physically recovered. Secondly, since the real properties are immovable in case of recovery of them can only be by means of forcible military occupation of those parts of the North in which these properties are situated. On the other hand, if the North attacked the East, it could only be for the purpose of further strengthening and entrenching its position of dominance in the country.

If it is claimed that an attack on the East is going to be launched by the Federal Government and not by the North as such and that it is designed to ensure the unity and integrity of the Federation, two other insuperable points also become obvious. First, if a war against the East becomes a necessity it must be agreed to unanimously by the remaining units of the Federation. In this connection, the West, Mid- West and Lagos have declared their implacable opposition to the use of force in solving the present problem. In the face of such declarations by three out of remaining four territories of Nigeria, a war against the East could only be a war favoured by the North alone. Second, if the true purpose of such a war is to preserve the unity and integrity of the Federation, then these ends can be achieved by the very simple devices of implementing the recommendation of the committee which met on August 9 1966, as reaffirmed by a decision of the military leaders at Aburi on January 5 1967 as well as by accepting such of the demands of the East, West, Mid-West and Lagos as are manifestly reasonable, and essential for assuring harmonious relationships and peaceful co-existence between them and their brothers and sisters in the North.

Some knowledgeable persons have likened an attack on the East to Lincoln’s war against the southern states in America. Two vital factors distinguish Lincoln’s campaign from the one now being contemplated in Nigeria. The first is that the American civil war was aimed at the abolition of slavery – that is the liberation of millions of Negroes who were then still being used as chattels and worse than domestic animals. The second factor is that Lincoln and others in the northern states were English-speaking people waging a war of good conscience and humanity against their fellow nationals who were also English speaking. A war against the East in which Northern soldiers are predominant, will only unite the Easterners or the Ibos against their attackers, strengthen them in their belief that they are not wanted by the majority of their fellow-Nigerians, and finally push them out of the Federation.

We have been told that an act of secession on the part of the East would be a signal, in the first instance, for the creation of the COR state by decree, which would be backed, if need be, by the use of force. With great respect, I have some dissenting observations to make on this declaration. There are 11 national or linguistic groups in the COR areas with a total population of 5.3 millions. These national groups are as distinct from one another as the Ibos are distinct from them or from the Yorubas or Hausas. Of the 11, the Efik/Ibibio/Annang national group are 3.2 million strong as against the Ijaws who are only about 700,000 strong. Ostensibly, the remaining nine national group number 1.4 millions. But when you have subtracted the Ibo inhabitants from among them, what is left ranges from the Ngennis who number only 8,000 to the Ogonis who are 220,000 strong. A decree creating a COR state without a plebiscite to ascertain the wishes of the peoples in the area, would only amount to subordinating the minority national groups in the state to the dominance of the Efik/Ibibio/Annang national group. It would be perfectly in order to create a Calabar state or a Rivers state by decree, and without a plebiscite. Each is a homogeneous national unit. But before you lump distinct and diverse national units together in one state, the consent of each of them is indispensable. Otherwise, the seed of social disquilibrium in the new state would have been sown.

On the other hand, if the COR State is created by decree after the Eastern Region shall have made its severance from Nigeria effective, we should then be waging an unjust war against a foreign state. It would be an unjust war, because the purpose of it would be to remove 10 minorities in the East from the dominance of the Ibos only to subordinate them to the dominance of the Efik/Ibibio/Annang national group. I think I have said enough to demonstrate that any war against the East, or vice versa, on any count whatsoever, would be an unholy crusade, for which it would be most unjustifiable to shed a drop of Nigerian blood. Therefore, only a peaceful solution must be found, and quickly too to arrest the present rapidly deteriorating stalemate and restore normalcy.

With regard to the second categorical imperative, it is my considered view that whilst some of the demands of the East are excessive within the context of a Nigerian union, most of such demands are not only well-founded, but are designed for smooth and steady association amongst the various national units of Nigeria.

The dependence of the Federal Government on financial contributions from the regions? These and other such like demands I do not support. Demands such as these, if accepted, will lead surely to the complete disintegration of the Federation which is not in the interest of our people. But I wholeheartedly support the following demands among others, which we consider reasonable and most of which are already embodied in our memoranda to the Ad Hoc Committee….

That revenue should be allocated strictly on the basis of derivation; that is to say after the Federal Government has deducted its own share for its own services the rest should be allocated to the regions to which they are attributable.

That the existing public debt of the Federation should become the responsibility of the regions on the basis of the location of the projects in respect of each debt whether internal or external.

That each region should have and control its own militia and police force.

That, with immediate effect, all military personnel should be posted to their regions of origin….


If we are to live in harmony one with another as Nigerians it is imperative that these demands and others which are not related, should be met without further delay by those who have hitherto resisted them. To those who may argue that the acceptance of these demands will amount to transforming Nigeria into a federation with a weak central government, my comment is that any link however tenuous, which keeps the East in the Nigerian union, is better in my view than no link at all.

Before the Western delegates went to Lagos to attend the meetings of the ad hoc committee, they were given a clear mandate that if any region should opt out of the Federation of Nigeria, then the Federation should be considered to be at an end, and that the Western Region and Lagos should also opt out of it. It would then be up to Western Nigeria and Lagos as an independent sovereign state to enter into association with any of the Nigerian units of its own choosing, and on terms mutually acceptable to them. I see no reason for departing from this mandate. If any region in Nigeria considers itself strong enough to compel us to enter into association with it on its own terms, I would only wish such a region luck. But such luck, I must warn, will, in the long run be no better than that which has attended the doings of all colonial powers down the ages. This much I must say in addition, on this point. We have neither military might nor the overwhelming advantage of numbers here in Western Nigeria and Lagos. But we have justice of a noble and imperishable cause on our side, namely: the right of a people to unfettered self-determination. If this is so, then God is on our side, and if God is with us then we have nothing whatsoever in this world to fear.

The fourth imperative, and the second conditional one has been fully dealt with in my recent letter to the Military Governor of Western Nigeria, Col. Robert Adebayo, and in the representation which your deputation made last year to the head of the Federal Military Government, Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon. As a matter of fact, as far back as November last year a smaller meeting of leaders of thought in this Region decided that unless certain things were done, we would no longer participate in the meeting of the ad hoc committee. But since then, not even one of our legitimate requests has been granted. I will, therefore, take no more of your time in making further comments on a point with which you are well familiar. As soon as our humble and earnest requests are met, I shall be ready to take my place on the ad hoc committee. But certainly, not before.

In closing, I have this piece of advice to give. In order to resolve amiably and in the best interests of all Nigerians certain attributes are required on the part of Nigerian leaders, military as well as non-military leaders alike, namely: vision, realism and unselfishness. But above all , what will keep Nigerian leaders in the North and East unwaveringly in the path of wisdom, realism and moderation is courage and steadfastness on the part of Yoruba people in the course of what they sincerely believe to be right, equitable and just. In the past five years we in the West and Lagos have shown that we possess these qualities in a large measure. If we demonstrate them again as we did in the past, calmly and heroically, we will save Nigeria from further bloodshed and imminent wreck and, at the same time, preserve our freedom and self-respect into the bargain.


May God rule and guide our deliberations here, and endow all the Nigerian leaders with the vision, realism, and unselfishness as well as courage and steadfastness in the course of truth, which the present circumstances demand.

——————–

Speech by Chief Obafemi Awolowo made to the Western leaders of thought, in Ibadan, 1 May 1967 (quoted in “Crisis and Conflict in Nigeria (Volume 1), January 1966-July 1971” by A. H. M. Kirk-Greene.

——————–

Culled from: http://ihuanedo.ning.com/group/wazobiaisalienotnigeria/forum/topics/complete-1967-awolowo-mapo-hall-speech-and-north-intimidation-of-


The talk is very cheap relatively to Yoruba. Loudmouth is of no use when it is matter of ultimate action. When caught my curious eyes are sentences in red from the above junk. A Col, a superior officer to Lt. Col, was subordinate to the junior officer. The serious decadence in today's Nigerian society stemmed from it.
Re: Pre-biafra War: Obafemi Awolowo’s Speech To Western Nigeria Leaders Of Thought by Idiko1: 10:05pm On Jan 14, 2022
MasterofNL:
Interestingly he always separated Lagos from Western Nigeria.

[size=16pt]Western Region and Lagos[/size]

He did separate Lagos and western region because Lagos was not integral part of western region as most goons on Nairaland would want us to believe otherwise.
Re: Pre-biafra War: Obafemi Awolowo’s Speech To Western Nigeria Leaders Of Thought by Idiko1: 10:08pm On Jan 14, 2022
grin

can you now see how inexperienced ojukwu was?

small boy. Mind you, Yorubas were neutral in the war.; D

One of the most idiotic statements on Nairaland.
Re: Pre-biafra War: Obafemi Awolowo’s Speech To Western Nigeria Leaders Of Thought by Idiko1: 10:15pm On Jan 14, 2022
pchukwudi:
[s][/s]

Young man, you are simply trying to interprete history from your current perspective without due regards to historic facts. You simply have no grasp of the facts. And your speculations do not appear so logical to me.

For starters, here are some facts and thoughts to ponder:

1. Contrary to your insinuation, the yorubas were not neutral during the war.

2. Lots of Yoruba soldiers fought on the Nigeria side, while some fought on the Biafra side.

3. The actual reason Yorubas did not alley with the easteners enmass was because of hate politics spread in the west in pre-67 elections, where akintola portrayed yorubas as economic victims to igbos whom he claimed dominated comnerce in lagos. He conviniently blamed this false yoruba victimization narative on Awolowo, who obviously was pro igbo at the time.

4. When akintola was killed during the coupe Awolowo had his chance to steer the west in the right direction but he had not the guts.

5. If the yorubas had solidly stood with the igbos on ojukwu's demands the north would not have had the morale to go into the war considering that the midwestern region was also a willing alley to the eastern region.

This is my last on this discurse.

The dude you responded with the above post has been a very poor student of Nigerian history especially in the department of Nigeria/Biafra war.
Re: Pre-biafra War: Obafemi Awolowo’s Speech To Western Nigeria Leaders Of Thought by IgOga(m): 1:47pm On Jan 21, 2022
gidgiddy:


Lagos was never actually part of the western region. Lagos had a special status as the administrative capital separate from the regions same way Abuja is the administrative capital separate from the 36 states.


Different people think different things about Awolowo. Most Igbos like me think that Awolowo was a coward of a man and a war criminal who led his ethnic group into northern bondage because he didn't have the guts to do what Ojukwu did. Generally, most Igbos highly detest Awolowo same way most Yorubas detest Ojukwu. I guess one persons hero is another persons villain. Whatever happens, Awolowo and Ojukwu will always be loved by their respective ethnic groups but it does show that we are very different people.

lol...you think Awolowo should have committed to war...how? Was he commanding any military? NO....Ojukwu on the other hand was in government and a soldier and commands troops. Awolowo could see that the might of the Nigerian Army will overwhelm the Biafra Army.... so he stayed out of it....maybe your anger should be against the likes of Obasanjo and Buhari, but then they were in the Nigerian Army and fighting for the country they swore to protect. You should blame the man who took you to war and escaped leaving you to suffer the consequences. Ojukwu told you he regretted the war before he died yet it was Awolowo's fault in your view.

1 Like

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply)

Rivers Golden Jubilee Celebration To Gulp N1.5 Billion / Lagos State PDP Chairman, Adedeji Doherty Resigns / Fuel Vouchers: A Better Way To Subsidize Fuel?

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 94
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.