Again, the problem here is you people refused to read the story but believe your own mind, the lies you've been told that has biased your mind. Ojukwu came back to Nigeria and has he or did he condemn his friend Aluko, no? But you over-fed babies think you know better? He said clearly that he told Ojukwu that he was corresponding with Gowon, Ojukwu still kept him in confidence, were you there or knew better than Ojukwu? Gowon reportedly called Ojukwu on his private numbers which only a few people knew including Aluko, Ojukwu did not break a nerve because he was aware what his friend was going to do.

When Ojukwu went to Aburi, he went prepared (on the advice of people) but Aluko did not divulge the preparedness of Ojukwu to Gowon as he went virtually to have a comrade like chat and just get issues resolved, I don't see anyone complaining that why didn't Aluko inform Gowon so he goes prepared too? So you guys see you are just very full of hate and bigotry.

Finally, NONE of you was even born then but act like you were witnesses to what happened! Someone told awful stories of how people were murdered in Asaba which was really sad. However, did you read the theatre that was set by the coup of January 1966 when soldiers from the SE (mainly) murdered their superiors from the other regions? All the cases were bad but how Ifeajunna killed Maimalari is the height of treachery for goodness sake! Maimalari only called out to Ifeajuna because he trusted him and he was his boss (read the account if you have not). Maimalari knew their was already trouble and already left and was walking toward Dodan Barracks. He saw Ifeajunna's car and called him (he could have hidden or taken the first shot) but what happened? Ifeajunna shot him to death in the company of his fellow Ibo soldier. If that is not treachery and a broken bond of trust, what is it? The same pattern was repeated that saw all the "fathers" of other people killed and yours preserved, what would you expect from people who you decided to kill all their "fathers" in a day or two??

I try as much as possible to refrain from commenting on issues that borders on  IGBOS  (maybe some especially on NL and even in reality ) hating my people so much that some of then have become so blind to seeing the obvious. During my service year I was a CLO with 2 Ibo chicks( both confidential secretaries) , an Akwa Ibom lawyer , a Delta Igbo guy economist and a Hausa doctor  in the  Corper's lodge. I remember that being the CLO and also a medical personnel, I was earning far more than everybody there coupled with the fact that I used my influence to organised some lesson classes which I made the parents to pay weekly and every teacher ( corps member) were paid according to the number of hours imputed also getting some extra official incentives for each and everyone of us with the local govt. The ladies were always scpetical and non trusting despite that they were not initially in the considerations as the parents only wanted science and commercial related lessons but I had to make a case so that these girls will be involved.( their allowance was a meagre 2000 from the local govt and me and the other doctor were on 48k while me was on a total of 55k outside others).

I could not believe that these girls were still non trusting and was making allegations behind me that I was collecting more money from the parents than I'm declaring to them !!!.  Until one day, I asked one of them to collect the weeekly dues from the parents when I travelled to the state capital on official assignment. Even when they knew the truth, one was still carrrying on with all sorts of allegations that after investigations were baseless . most of this I didn't know. Along the line one of them and the Delta Igbo guy told me hoha! that the reason main and only why Ebele totally hated my guts was just because I am Yoruba !! even  if I cut my head and give her, she'll not like anything I do for her.

What Am I saying ? No matter what, some people will continue to dislike and hate you for no reason or baseless reasons  even in the face of the truth. It is not peculiar to some sets of people though but it is really appalling for NL none entities (faceless and nameless) not known for any  good or progressive in  their immediate neighbourhood still perpetrating such debasing acts and disrespect for people that they think in their small minds  are their heroes do not disrespect but infact trusted and eulogised . It makes me wonder what sort of human being they are really.
I never in my entire small life ever heard read or see  Ikemba portrayed anybody he was with as a traitor because they were trained and know what it means to be a traitor. I'm even begining to think thst  non- Igbos tend to respect and regard some Igbo leaders based on issues and not sentimentality and gra-gra. More than the Igbos themselves cause I cannot fathom how you call somebody your leader elder ( not others declaring them for you)  and you don't respect their opinions and some actions even when you don't understand the wisdom of such !! People like that are definitely are going to be bad (don't wanna use worse) compared to their predecessor and will definitely self destruct. The more you blame the more you''l hate and the more you become blind to see and the more you loose the game.

I THINK IT'S RATHER HIGH TIME TO MOVE ON AND STOP THIS BLAME /  DISTRUST/ DISRESPECT/ DISREGARD GAME  for a better stronger cohesive , virile and INDEPENDENT NDIGBO .

@ 9ja- i - hail. I think it's better you speak for your family or village . You word does not in this case does not show a consesus of the Edo, Delta, Akwa Ibom, Cross River,Rivers and Bayelsa.
Actions for a long time now has really shown who is and still happy with the way Nigeria is and by the voting pattern and party allignment

^^^ Thank you and as someone who has lived and been to almost every part of Nigeria, I never get this kind of vibe! All my Igbo chicks been they roll tight and this NL things na wah o but I think a lot of them have been lied to and can not use their own brains to read, understand and dissect issues. Some of them are even old and married while young guns here take them to school everyday and they get mad, why? I still got friends here and whenever someone even slightly suggests tribe, I ask them immediately about the situation where Nigerian leaders never remember their tribe when they are sharing the money in the executive, legislative, judiciary and others but you working honestly and trying to live a normal life is deceived? But well as you said some people cannot and will not change on tribalism.

In all honesty, Aluko should have just payed his  respect to his 'good friend' Ojukwu, rather than emerging in Ojukwu's death to make all sorts of declarations. All these years that Ojukwu lived, he never took credit.for the Aburi meeting, so that we could confirm his claims from Ikemba. As soon as he passes, oh ' I taught Ojukwu how to tie his shoe laces, I taught him how to ride a bicycle'. How do we corroborate his tales now that he conveniently waited for Ojukwu to pass before making his revealations? Who told him he was the only one Ojukwu respected and consulted during those trying times?  I believe they were friendly but Prof seems to be a master of exaggerations.

Kc3000:

In all honesty, Aluko should have just payed his  respect to his 'good friend' Ojukwu, rather than emerging in Ojukwu's death to make all sorts of declarations. All these years that Ojukwu lived, he never took credit.for the Aburi meeting, so that we could confirm his claims from Ikemba. As soon as he passes, oh ' I taught Ojukwu how to tie his shoe laces, I taught him how to ride a bicycle'. How do we corroborate his tales now that he conveniently waited for Ojukwu to pass before making his revealations? Who told him he was the only one Ojukwu respected and consulted during those trying times?  I believe they were friendly but Prof seems to be a master of exaggerations.

. . .and Jipiti

Seriously im not in support of tribal war or whtever that pertains to tribe i believe there are good pple in every tribes and there are bad once even in every part of the world its the same,even pple that are talking rubbish here many of them are betrayers infact everybody are betrayers you have all betrayed in 1 way or the other its only those we see we know and talk about so come off betray issue,i always believe in 1 nigeria but what always piss me off about ibos is when they talk about yoruba ,you know yoruba are not good but you (ibos)dominate their (yoruba) lands,they accomodate you,you live comfortably there they have never for once plan any evil against you and you still use ur mouth to condemn them ouchhhh, can't you see this is so bad of you?why can't you guys also stay in ur land and develop it instead of you running up and down to another man's land?i don't see what is so special in this post that you are taking to be something too big,afterall there is no record that says it was this aluko man that killed the man ojukwu and they were still friends even till his death so what are you blablablablaing about? pls you guys should be reasonable for once and stop all these ur blablablabla about yoruba why is it that if anything happen in nigeria ibos are more affected than other tribes?im just curious you guys should try and be good.

Although I have never met this prof Aluko in person, I have heard so much about him and I think it won't be out of place to say that he belongs to the set of Nigerian best Brains. His account collaborated some of the things I read in a book tittled EMEKA, written by Frederick Forsyth, a British Author. I recommend the book to anyone who cares, it covered almost everything that transpired in Nigeria during those dark periods and the role each of the actors played, their mistakes, betrayal, etc and why they did what they did, starting from the first Coup to the return of Ojukwu from exile.

KDULAR:

I try as much as possible to refrain from commenting on issues that borders on  IGBOS  (maybe some especially on NL and even in reality ) hating my people so much that some of then have become so blind to seeing the obvious. During my service year I was a CLO with 2 Ibo chicks( both confidential secretaries) , an Akwa Ibom lawyer , a Delta Igbo guy economist and a Hausa doctor  in the  Corper's lodge. I remember that being the CLO and also a medical personnel, I was earning far more than everybody there coupled with the fact that I used my influence to organised some lesson classes which I made the parents to pay weekly and every teacher ( corps member) were paid according to the number of hours imputed also getting some extra official incentives for each and everyone of us with the local govt. The ladies were always scpetical and non trusting despite that they were not initially in the considerations as the parents only wanted science and commercial related lessons but I had to make a case so that these girls will be involved.( their allowance was a meagre 2000 from the local govt and me and the other doctor were on 48k while me was on a total of 55k outside others).

I could not believe that these girls were still non trusting and was making allegations behind me that I was collecting more money from the parents than I'm declaring to them !!!.  Until one day, I asked one of them to collect the weeekly dues from the parents when I travelled to the state capital on official assignment. Even when they knew the truth, one was still carrrying on with all sorts of allegations that after investigations were baseless . most of this I didn't know. Along the line one of them and the Delta Igbo guy told me hoha! that the reason main and only why Ebele totally hated my guts was just because I am Yoruba !! even  if I cut my head and give her, she'll not like anything I do for her.

What Am I saying ? No matter what, some people will continue to dislike and hate you for no reason or baseless reasons  even in the face of the truth. It is not peculiar to some sets of people though but it is really appalling for NL none entities (faceless and nameless) not known for any  good or progressive in  their immediate neighbourhood still perpetrating such debasing acts and disrespect for people that they think in their small minds  are their heroes do not disrespect but infact trusted and eulogised . It makes me wonder what sort of human being they are really.
I never in my entire small life ever heard read or see  Ikemba portrayed anybody he was with as a traitor because they were trained and know what it means to be a traitor. I'm even begining to think thst  non- Igbos tend to respect and regard some Igbo leaders based on issues and not sentimentality and gra-gra. More than the Igbos themselves cause I cannot fathom how you call somebody your leader elder ( not others declaring them for you)  and you don't respect their opinions and some actions even when you don't understand the wisdom of such !! People like that are definitely are going to be bad (don't wanna use worse) compared to their predecessor and will definitely self destruct. The more you blame the more you''l hate and the more you become blind to see and the more you loose the game.

I THINK IT'S RATHER HIGH TIME TO MOVE ON AND STOP THIS BLAME /  DISTRUST/ DISRESPECT/ DISREGARD GAME  for a better stronger cohesive , virile and INDEPENDENT NDIGBO .

@ 9ja- i - hail. I think it's better you speak for your family or village . You word does not in this case does not show a consesus of the Edo, Delta, Akwa Ibom, Cross River,Rivers and Bayelsa.
Actions for a long time now has really shown who is and still happy with the way Nigeria is and by the voting pattern and party allignment

Your stories are personal. It goes both ways. There are Igbo vs Igbo fights likewise Yoruba vs Yoruba fights.

Niger delta is a big place and very diverse. There are different groups that would support either of the two bigger ethnic groups.

CyberG:

^^^ Thank you and as someone who has lived and been to almost every part of Nigeria, I never get this kind of vibe! All my Igbo chicks been they roll tight and this NL things na wah o but I think a lot of them have been lied to and can not use their own brains to read, understand and dissect issues. Some of them are even old and married while young guns here take them to school everyday and they get mad, why? I still got friends here and whenever someone even slightly suggests tribe, I ask them immediately about the situation where Nigerian leaders never remember their tribe when they are sharing the money in the executive, legislative, judiciary and others but you working honestly and trying to live a normal life is deceived? But well as you said some people cannot and will not change on tribalism.

There's nothing to lie about as we face reality today. Abi you self blind?

Just as you fear the North, the West also fears the North. The soldiers in the North are occupying the West.

IMO i think this is the main reason why they had to betray biafra.because the northern solders were in the west and they feared that if they supported biafra,they will loss.they only played to their own interest.

I don't blame them though but i think the Yorubas need to summon courage in the face of oppression/injustice because there are times when diplomacy don't work.and i think that is what made AU a laughing stock in the Libya crisis(thinking diplomacy would have made Gaddafi step down;like it's is also happening in Syria)

this is for us to learn from our past mistakes,look for a better future and also to always know who your true friends are.

RIP OJUKWU.

Who betrayed Biafra,  Una don come again.

No region can be said to have betrayed another region ok.

You didn't see the passages where Westerners needed protection in order to leave the East. Why would Easterners want to kill Westerners leaving. It wasnt us that killed your people?

The man gave an honest account and all many posters can see is tribal bollocks!

Zik that played wayo with both sides is revered as a King, despite the fact that he jumped from one side to the next like an Ashawo jumps beds. Mourn Ojukwu, but don't put your wahala on the West!

houvest
Posts: 987

Offline

Re: What Ojukwu Told Me Before, During And After The War —sam Aluko
« #61 on: Yesterday at 10:25:07 PM »
Interesting Reading. However there are a number of fallacies and loads of prejudice and the fact that all these came out after the death of the other party leaves a lot of question marks. 1/ Biafra was not forced on Igbos, It was a survival measure.

@houvewest
in a situation such as this,it is the leadership who will make the decision to secede,in this case ojukwu in concert with his advisers,they were forced/pressured into making the decision to secede due to a number of incidents that happened where ojukwu reasoned that the igbos were no more safe in nigeria.

I wonder how soldiers trained to defend themselves and their people after seeing tens of thousands of their kit and kin massacred in the North will tell Aluko that they did not want to fight when actually the civilians were begging Ojukwu to give them guns and even matchets to go and fight.( Ojukwu nye anyi mma, nye anyi egbe outcry) If Aluko was really in the East then I am surprised that he did not understand the anger in people's heart then.

@houvewest
its easy for people like you to say,because you have not witnessed ordinary secret cult clashes where blood is shed talk less of a war, ask anyone who has been involved in a war and they will tell you that the strongest fearless become little babies, at this time you are glibly saying your igbos were shouting for more weapons,they were demoralised,hungry,hounded by nigerian soldiers a blockade against food ,medical supplies even the western powers deserted them living in bushes there were even reports of cannibalism going on and in your own reasoning they will still be crying to fight more??


[b]
2/ To say that the people of Cross River and Rivers were anti Biafra ab initio is historically false. Certainly there were antagonists like Elechi Amadi , SaroWiwa,etcas there were a handful also among Igbos eg Asika Ukpabi but they were also in the minority but grew as things started looking south and especially after the states creation by Gowon. But up to the end of the war many non Igbo Biafrans were pro Biafra. I still remember as a toddler the many Ijaw people that ran to my village in Imo as refugees and lived in our house with us. It is unfortunate that the antagonists gained the upper hand through anti-igbo propaganda especially the then Rivers and was able to sway the others and even dragging the Ikwerres their way to the extent of being able to perpetrate one of the most inhumane treatments to their Igbo brothers post civil war infamously called the abandoned property saga. The matter of voting for the hausas were all part of the continuation of the war after the war. Before the war ,Ziks ncnc always swept the votes in all those areas.After all, Eyo Ita from Cross River was the Governor of Eastern Nigeria before the infamous western cross- carpetting made Zik leave Ibadan for Enugu to replace him. Much bad blood rose between the Efik/bibios and Igbos from that but not to the point of fearing the Igbos more than the hausas who killed them eqaully as the Igbos.
[/b]

@houvewest
if you read through your own comments,you have already contradicted yourself, while you disagree with prof alum's assertions that the cross river and rivers e.t.c were against biafra,you have also admitted in the same comment that there were some bad blood going on,
how did you come about your own figures that it was only an handful??
so your account of only an handful should be believed and that of prof aluko should be swept aside because you are igbo??
the man made an assertion,you confirmed his assertion in your comment yet you say he is uttering fallacieslooooool
if you agree the matter of voting for the hausas was all part of the continuation of the war,thereby validating prof alum's assertion what then are you on about?


The fact people forget about Biafra was that it was a survivalist option no matter how faulted people can make of it with the benefit of hindsight. The Eastern Consultative assembly had representatives from all nooks and crannies of Biafra and voted overwhelmingly for Ojukwu to pull out Biafra. The Republic of Biafra :

@houvewest

the eastern consultative assembly did not conduct a general consensus amongst the generality of the igbos to ask if they wanted to pull out or not neither did ojukwu.the fact that they supported it does not translate to them wholeheartedly supporting it,
the british,french,americans all made a point of protesting against the iraq invasion in britain we even had the largest anti war demonstration,this didn't stop tony blair,george bush/nato alliance forging ahead anyway, after the criticisms,the half truths discovered e.t.c the people had no choice but to support the soldiers waging war so you are now saying that come 20/30/40/50 yrs from now a brit or french man can stand up and say that the country fully supported the invasion??
RElli!

on a last note,I'm surprised none of you ethnic jigoist mentioned anything about zik's betrayal of ojukwu and biafra, so zip is an angel in spite of abandoning you to join nigeria and opposing ojukwu,yet professor aluko who stated an unbiased and objective account of what he witnessed is a traitor,enemy and all sorts, even if ojukwu was dead are many of the people mentioned not alive to corroborate or disagree?

the man said he has not seen ojukwu in years because he moved to enugu or wherever,do you know the man's age?so you expect him to drive or look for ojukwu to validate his own accounts of what happened did ojukwu himself finish his war memoirs before he died if it was that easy?

lucabrasi:

houvest
Posts: 987

Offline

Re: What Ojukwu Told Me Before, During And After The War —sam Aluko
« #61 on: Yesterday at 10:25:07 PM »
Interesting Reading. However there are a number of fallacies and loads of prejudice and the fact that all these came out after the death of the other party leaves a lot of question marks. 1/ Biafra was not forced on Igbos, It was a survival measure.

@houvewest
in a situation such as this,it is the leadership who will make the decision to secede,in this case ojukwu in concert with his advisers,they were forced/pressured into making the decision to secede due to a number of incidents that happened where ojukwu reasoned that the igbos were no more safe in nigeria.

I wonder how soldiers trained to defend themselves and their people after seeing tens of thousands of their kit and kin massacred in the North will tell Aluko that they did not want to fight when actually the civilians were begging Ojukwu to give them guns and even matchets to go and fight.( Ojukwu nye anyi mma, nye anyi egbe outcry) If Aluko was really in the East then I am surprised that he did not understand the anger in people's heart then.

@houvewest
its easy for people like you to say,because you have not witnessed ordinary secret cult clashes where blood is shed talk less of a war, ask anyone who has been involved in a war and they will tell you that the strongest fearless become little babies, at this time you are glibly saying your igbos were shouting for more weapons,they were demoralised,hungry,hounded by nigerian soldiers a blockade against food ,medical supplies even the western powers deserted them living in bushes there were even reports of cannibalism going on and in your own reasoning they will still be crying to fight more??


[b]
2/ To say that the people of Cross River and Rivers were anti Biafra ab initio is historically false. Certainly there were antagonists like Elechi Amadi , SaroWiwa,etcas there were a handful also among Igbos eg Asika Ukpabi but they were also in the minority but grew as things started looking south and especially after the states creation by Gowon. But up to the end of the war many non Igbo Biafrans were pro Biafra. I still remember as a toddler the many Ijaw people that ran to my village in Imo as refugees and lived in our house with us. It is unfortunate that the antagonists gained the upper hand through anti-igbo propaganda especially the then Rivers and was able to sway the others and even dragging the Ikwerres their way to the extent of being able to perpetrate one of the most inhumane treatments to their Igbo brothers post civil war infamously called the abandoned property saga. The matter of voting for the hausas were all part of the continuation of the war after the war. Before the war ,Ziks ncnc always swept the votes in all those areas.After all, Eyo Ita from Cross River was the Governor of Eastern Nigeria before the infamous western cross- carpetting made Zik leave Ibadan for Enugu to replace him. Much bad blood rose between the Efik/bibios and Igbos from that but not to the point of fearing the Igbos more than the hausas who killed them eqaully as the Igbos.
[/b]

@houvewest
if you read through your own comments,you have already contradicted yourself, while you disagree with prof alum's assertions that the cross river and rivers e.t.c were against biafra,you have also admitted in the same comment that there were some bad blood going on,
how did you come about your own figures that it was only an handful??
so your account of only an handful should be believed and that of prof aluko should be swept aside because you are igbo??
the man made an assertion,you confirmed his assertion in your comment yet you say he is uttering fallacieslooooool
if you agree the matter of voting for the hausas was all part of the continuation of the war,thereby validating prof alum's assertion what then are you on about?


The fact people forget about Biafra was that it was a survivalist option no matter how faulted people can make of it with the benefit of hindsight. The Eastern Consultative assembly had representatives from all nooks and crannies of Biafra and voted overwhelmingly for Ojukwu to pull out Biafra. The Republic of Biafra :

@houvewest

the eastern consultative assembly did not conduct a general consensus amongst the generality of the igbos to ask if they wanted to pull out or not neither did ojukwu.the fact that they supported it does not translate to them wholeheartedly supporting it,
the british,french,americans all made a point of protesting against the iraq invasion in britain we even had the largest anti war demonstration,this didn't stop tony blair,george bush/nato alliance forging ahead anyway, after the criticisms,the half truths discovered e.t.c the people had no choice but to support the soldiers waging war so you are now saying that come 20/30/40/50 yrs from now a brit or french man can stand up and say that the country fully supported the invasion??
RElli!

on a last note,I'm surprised none of you ethnic jigoist mentioned anything about zik's betrayal of ojukwu and biafra, so zip is an angel in spite of abandoning you to join nigeria and opposing ojukwu,yet professor aluko who stated an unbiased and objective account of what he witnessed is a traitor,enemy and all sorts, even if ojukwu was dead are many of the people mentioned not alive to corroborate or disagree?

the man said he has not seen ojukwu in years because he moved to enugu or wherever,do you know the man's age?so you expect him to drive or look for ojukwu to validate his own accounts of what happened did ojukwu himself finish his war memoirs before he died if it was that easy.

Thanks for your efforts here to engage me constructively but probably you need to read through Aluko's interview before you try to defend him because your attempt here does not appear thorough and your points are just your opinions. You cited no authorities to back them up

Notice the following my first point was this:1// Biafra was not forced on Igbos, It was a survival measure. Notice your rebutal.www

'in a situation such as this,it is the leadership who will make the decision to secede,in this case ojukwu in concert with his advisers,they were forced/pressured into making the decision to secede due to a number of incidents that happened where ojukwu reasoned that the igbos were no more safe in nigeria.e'

What point were you actually trying to make? Was it not a survivalist move? Are you saying that Ojukwu forced it on Igbos or what?



The decision to secede was a result of so many things. The main reason was survival. In a nation where 30,000 of your people had been massacred and the federal govt not only did nothing  about it but rather appears to be in support. The final impetus was the renegeing on Aburi. The Aburi accord was the best chance of solving the issues and still is but as soon as they came back from Aburi, Gowon reneged on the agreement thus leaving the Eastern Side high and dry. It was then that the Eastern Consultative Assembly which was like the legislative body passed the resolution for secession not Ojukwu.

The Republic of Biafra : Resolution by the Eastern Region
Consultative Assembly.





We, the Chiefs, Elders and Representatives of Eastern Nigeria,
gathered at this Joint meeting of the Advisory Committee of Chiefs
and Elders and the Consultative Assembly do solemnly declare as
follows:
Whereas we have been in the vanguard of the national movement for the
building of a strong, united and prosperous Nigeria where no man will
be oppressed and have devoted our efforts, talents and resources to
this end;
Whereas we cherish certain inalienable human rights and state
obligations such as the right to life, liberty and pursuit of
happiness; the right to acquire, possess and defend property; the
provision of security; and the establishment of good and just
government based on the consent of the governed;
Whereas in practical demonstration of these beliefs, our people
settled in other parts of Nigeria, served their country in many
capacities, and contributed immensely to the growth and development
of Nigeria;
Whereas we are living witnesses of injustices and atrocities
committed against Eastern Nigeria, among which are the premeditated
murder of over 30,000 of our innocent men,
women and children by Northern Nigerians, the calculated destruction
of the property of our sons and daughters, the shameless conversion
of two million Eastern Nigerians into refugees in their own country,
all this without remorse;
Whereas in consequence of these and other acts of discrimination and
injustice, we have painfully realized that the Federation of Nigeria
has failed, and has given us no protection;
Whereas in spite of these facts, the Government and people of Eastern
Nigeria have persisted in their efforts to find a practical and just
solution that would preserve the continued existence of Nigeria as
one corporate unit and restore peace and confidence as demonstrated
by the initiative of our Military Governor in getting all the
military leaders together at Aburi, Ghana;
Whereas the hopes which the Aburi Agreement engendered have proved to
be misplaced and have been destroyed by a series of acts of bad faith
and distortions and finally by a refusal on the part of the >Lagos
Government= to implement these and other Agreements notwithstanding
the fact that they were freely and voluntarily entered into;
Whereas the Federation of Nigeria has forfeited any claim to our
allegiance by these acts and by the economic, political and
diplomatic sanctions imposed against us by the so-called Federal
Government;
And whereas the object of government is the good of the governed and
the will of the people its ultimate sanction;
Now, therefore, in consideration of these and other facts and
injustices, we, the Chiefs, Elders and Representatives of all the
Twenty Provinces of Eastern Nigeria, assembled in this Joint Meeting
of the Advisory Committee of Chiefs and Elders and the Consultative
Assembly, at Enugu this 27th day of May, 1967, we hereby solemnly:
a. Mandate His Excellency Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu,
Military Governor of Eastern Nigeria, to declare at the earliest
practicable date Eastern Nigeria a free, sovereign and independent
sate by the name and title of the Republic of Biafra.
B. Resolve that the new Republic of Biafra shall have the full and
absolute powers of a sovereign state, and shall establish commerce,
levy war, conclude peace, enter into diplomatic relations, and carry
out, as of right, other sovereign responsibilities.
C. Direct that the Republic of Biafra may enter into arrangement with
any sovereign unit or units in what remains of Nigeria or in any part
of African desirous of association with us for the purpose of running
a common services organization and for the establishment of economic
ties.
D. Recommend that the Republic of Biafra should become a member of
the Commonwealth of Nations, the Organization of African Unity and
the United Nations Organization.
E. Recommend the adoption of a Federal Constitution based on the new
provincial units.
F. Re-affirm His Excellency's assurance of protection for the persons,
properties and businesses of foreign nationals in our territory.
G. Declare our unqualified confidence in the Military Governor of
Eastern Nigeria, Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, and assure him
of our unreserved support for the way and manner he has handled the
crisis in the country.

So help us God.

Note from this resolution that the declaration of Biafra pwas predated by Aburi Accord and was cited here as a reason for the declaration but Aluko in his interview turned it the other way round. He said Ojukwu first declared Biafra and then turned around and told him that we can still talk whereby he now recommended Aburi. This historical falsehood is enough to throw away the whole interview. But let's continue



Your second rebuttal was this :'its easy for people like you to say,because you have not witnessed ordinary secret cult clashes where blood is shed talk less of a war, ask anyone who has been involved in a war and they will tell you that the strongest fearless become little babies, at this time you are glibly saying your igbos were shouting for more weapons,they were demoralised,hungry,hounded by nigerian soldiers a blockade against food ,medical supplies even the western powers deserted them living in bushes there were even reports of cannibalism going on and in your own reasoning they will still be crying to fight more?'

Now note what Aluko said that I tried to dispute:


'But I was going almost every month to Enugu, Nnewi or Onitsha to see him. What worried me, as I told him, was that whenever I was going from Onitsha to Enugu or Onitsha to Nnewi, soldiers who are eastern soldiers would say: “Doctor, please tell Governor we don’t want to fight. We have suffered enough. We don’t want to fight.” So, I will always tell him: “Emeka, the people you say no power in Africa can stop, are not willing to fight. They are not with you 100 per cent. This is what they tell me.” He said he knew but there was no going back and that he had secured the confidence of the French, British, the Americans and some African countries. I said: “Don’t rely on Western powers. They are talking to you now because you are controlling the oil. Immediately there is war and they take the oil from you, they will desert you. It is because the oil is in the East and you are military governor in the East. But with what I see, immediately those in Rivers and Cross Rivers desert you and they link with the Federal Government and the Federal Government take those places from you, Britain, America and France will leave you,” which is what they did.

So from this can you not see that at this point the shooting war had not started? So your rebuttal using  the situation in war-torn  Biafra is moot. If Aluko had said this happened sometime after the shooting war had started and the suffering in Biafra had started, It will have been more believable.

Now your next rebuttal was the following:


'if you read through your own comments,you have already contradicted yourself, while you disagree with prof alum's assertions that the cross river and rivers e.t.c were against biafra,you have also admitted in the same comment that there were some bad blood going on,
how did you come about your own figures that it was only an handful??
so your account of only an handful should be believed and that of prof aluko should be swept aside because you are igbo??
the man made an assertion,you confirmed his assertion in your comment yet you say he is uttering fallacieslooooool
if you agree the matter of voting for the hausas was all part of the continuation of the war,thereby validating prof alum's assertion what then are you on about?


That question should be asked Aluko because he made the assertion. The onus of proof lies with the person who makes an assertion not the person trying to deny it. Please google this: semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. I gave evidence to support my denial of Alukoassertion but he gave nothing for his assertion except that it was what he saw as he moved around in the east. Is that enough proof? But I told you that  1/a cross river man was at one time the  governor of Eastern Nigeria not an Igbo man. 2/Effiong a, across riverman was Ojukwus second in command. 3/All parts of the eastern region had representatives in the Eastern Consultative Assembly that passed the resolution  for the declaration of Biafra and fought for it. 4/Refugees from Ijaw ran to us and lived with us inour village house when their area fell to Nigeria. They ran to Imo instead of defecting to the Nigerian side. This shows you that they were not all against Igbos or Biafra as Aluko tried to paint. I let you know that there were also some against it even among Igbos so the qustion is what are you on about? I showed you that voting for hausas was post civil war not before the civil war and that was only during the second republic. Before the war they always voted for Zik-an Igboman so how could Aluko say those about them. In the 3rd republic they voted for Abiola. In the 4th Republic, they voted for Obasanjo, then Yaradua, then GEJ. So how are they always voting for hausas who also kill them as they kill Igbo as Aluko asserted.


Your next point was this:


'the eastern consultative assembly did not conduct a general consensus amongst the generality of the igbos to ask if they wanted to pull out or not neither did ojukwu.the fact that they supported it does not translate to them wholeheartedly supporting it,
the british,french,americans all made a point of protesting against the iraq invasion in britain we even had the largest anti war demonstration,this didn't stop tony blair,george bush/nato alliance forging ahead anyway, after the criticisms,the half truths discovered e.t.c the people had no choice but to support the soldiers waging war so you are now saying that come 20/30/40/50 yrs from now a brit or french man can stand up and say that the country fully supported the invasion??
RElli!'

Okay now you agree that it was the Eastern Consultative assembly that made the resolution for Biafra not Ojukwu. Ok then. But however did you arrive at what you wrote above. These were representatives of the people voted in by the people. There was no dissent among them. Not one. Did you want them to conduct a referendum before they know the peoples mind. The torn limbs, headless bodies, pregnant women ripped open mothers arriving with their headless infants in their arms, cries of widows widowers and orphans arriving everyday by train from the North with their harrowing tales of midnight visits by the northern mobs, misery, agony written all over them while Gowon was playing russian roulette in complete indifference or even acquiscence all helped to fuel the fury added to the treating of the Aburi Accord with levity by Gowon and his men  was  was all the referendum you needed.


Good that you glossed over and did not try to rebutt what I wrote about the falacies about the 1983 elections, the excuses for reneging on Aburi and his claim that the superpowers supported Biafra ab initio but your parting shot on Zik is noted but the issue here is The analysis of Aluko's interview about an alleged tight friend which he kept till he died. Since his tight friend is not here to agree with or refute his claims, morality lays a burden on us ,the living ,to surgically analyse it to see whether it stands or falls. Nobody is hounding him but since he has thrown his gauntlet down, it has to be accepted. He did not provide any recorded evidence nor written proofs so it is just his words and dont you think that after 44 years and at the age of 84, some details may have got mixed up or recast in a way not entirely true. Analyses attempt to recover the truth in the story.

Thank you.

SOME PEOPLE BE DAFT OH!, AN OLD MAN WAS INTERVIEWED BY AN IGBO MAN FOR AN IGBO NEWSPAPER,ORJI UZOR KALU NEWPAPER. ON HIS RELATIONSHIP AND OTHER INFO ON WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE CIVIL WAR AND PEOPLE STILL DEY YAN DUST >>SAY WHY HIM DEY TALK AFTER THE GENERAL DIED.
SOMETIME I WONDER IF PEOPLE WEY DEY USE THIS SITE ARE NOT HAIRDRESSERS AND !$ YEARS OLD

I don't belief a darn thing Prof Aluko has said. Especially all this long story potraying Ojukwu as a man who didn't have a mind of His own. Bouncing off his thoughts/decisions on a man who waited till His death (when He can't challenge the Article) to push-out a an article on the war.

If It turns out most of His accounts here are not true or that He actually betrayed Ojukwu then He'd probably lose all the respect I had for Him.

I am not Ibo, I am from Cross River but my Dad was close to Philip Effiong and Ojukwu  and left Lagos to fight on the Biafran side. He returned after the Civil war in 1970 .

Of all the stories my Dad 's told us and books and some very confidential memoirs He has about the war at our home. I didn't see any with reference to Prof. Aluko playing the role of a confidant or private adviser to Ojukwu or even reference in passing saying the Prof was as relevant to Dim  Ojukwu  as He's claimed here, damn!!!

To  even infer that Ojukwu was forced into leading Biafra, that Biafran Soldiers didn't want to fight, that He helped Ojukwu chose Aburi, that He told Ojukwu this and that, and how He was a mediatotraitor is all too wooly for me jare, kilode de?

houvest:


Thanks for your efforts here to engage me constructively but probably you need to read through Aluko's interview before you try to defend him because your attempt here does not appear thorough and your points are just your opinions. You cited no authorities to back them up

well seeing as the topic under debate is the intent behind prof sam aluko's interview,what sources again is required?i have read the interview from top to buttom hence the reason i posted a retort to your comment

houvest:

Notice the following my first point was this:1// Biafra was not forced on Igbos, It was a survival measure. Notice your rebutal.www

'in a situation such as this,it is the leadership who will make the decision to secede,in this case ojukwu in concert with his advisers,they were forced/pressured into making the decision to secede due to a number of incidents that happened where ojukwu reasoned that the igbos were no more safe in nigeria.e'

What point were you actually trying to make? Was it not a survivalist move? Are you saying that Ojukwu forced it on Igbos or what?

the point i was trying to make precisely is that history did not tell us that the igbos had a consensus and jointly decided to secede.moreover this was the point prof aluko was trying to make in his interview,that the leadership of the igbos due to what they saw as an untenable situation decided to secede and go to war and the people had to choice but to support,
the likes of jeremiah useni,ty danjuma and other middle belt leaders might also wake up tomorrow and decide to secede considering how many middle belt christians have been lost to riots,the properties they have lost,churches burnt e.t.c they can also justify it as a survivalist move and they will be right no?

houvest:

The decision to secede was a result of so many things. The main reason was survival. In a nation where 30,000 of your people had been massacred and the federal govt not only did nothing  about it but rather appears to be in support. The final impetus was the renegeing on Aburi. The Aburi accord was the best chance of solving the issues and still is but as soon as they came back from Aburi, Gowon reneged on the agreement thus leaving the Eastern Side high and dry. It was then that the Eastern Consultative Assembly which was like the legislative body passed the resolution for secession not Ojukwu.

The Republic of Biafra : Resolution by the Eastern Region
Consultative Assembly.





We, the Chiefs, Elders and Representatives of Eastern Nigeria,
gathered at this Joint meeting of the Advisory Committee of Chiefs
and Elders and the Consultative Assembly do solemnly declare as
follows:
Whereas we have been in the vanguard of the national movement for the
building of a strong, united and prosperous Nigeria where no man will
be oppressed and have devoted our efforts, talents and resources to
this end;
Whereas we cherish certain inalienable human rights and state
obligations such as the right to life, liberty and pursuit of
happiness; the right to acquire, possess and defend property; the
provision of security; and the establishment of good and just
government based on the consent of the governed;
Whereas in practical demonstration of these beliefs, our people
settled in other parts of Nigeria, served their country in many
capacities, and contributed immensely to the growth and development
of Nigeria;
Whereas we are living witnesses of injustices and atrocities
committed against Eastern Nigeria, among which are the premeditated
murder of over 30,000 of our innocent men,
women and children by Northern Nigerians, the calculated destruction
of the property of our sons and daughters, the shameless conversion
of two million Eastern Nigerians into refugees in their own country,
all this without remorse;
Whereas in consequence of these and other acts of discrimination and
injustice, we have painfully realized that the Federation of Nigeria
has failed, and has given us no protection;
Whereas in spite of these facts, the Government and people of Eastern
Nigeria have persisted in their efforts to find a practical and just
solution that would preserve the continued existence of Nigeria as
one corporate unit and restore peace and confidence as demonstrated
by the initiative of our Military Governor in getting all the
military leaders together at Aburi, Ghana;
Whereas the hopes which the Aburi Agreement engendered have proved to
be misplaced and have been destroyed by a series of acts of bad faith
and distortions and finally by a refusal on the part of the >Lagos
Government= to implement these and other Agreements notwithstanding
the fact that they were freely and voluntarily entered into;
Whereas the Federation of Nigeria has forfeited any claim to our
allegiance by these acts and by the economic, political and
diplomatic sanctions imposed against us by the so-called Federal
Government;
And whereas the object of government is the good of the governed and
the will of the people its ultimate sanction;
Now, therefore, in consideration of these and other facts and
injustices, we, the Chiefs, Elders and Representatives of all the
Twenty Provinces of Eastern Nigeria, assembled in this Joint Meeting
of the Advisory Committee of Chiefs and Elders and the Consultative
Assembly, at Enugu this 27th day of May, 1967, we hereby solemnly:
a. Mandate His Excellency Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu,
Military Governor of Eastern Nigeria, to declare at the earliest
practicable date Eastern Nigeria a free, sovereign and independent
sate by the name and title of the Republic of Biafra.
B. Resolve that the new Republic of Biafra shall have the full and
absolute powers of a sovereign state, and shall establish commerce,
levy war, conclude peace, enter into diplomatic relations, and carry
out, as of right, other sovereign responsibilities.
C. Direct that the Republic of Biafra may enter into arrangement with
any sovereign unit or units in what remains of Nigeria or in any part
of African desirous of association with us for the purpose of running
a common services organization and for the establishment of economic
ties.
D. Recommend that the Republic of Biafra should become a member of
the Commonwealth of Nations, the Organization of African Unity and
the United Nations Organization.
E. Recommend the adoption of a Federal Constitution based on the new
provincial units.
F. Re-affirm His Excellency's assurance of protection for the persons,
properties and businesses of foreign nationals in our territory.
G. Declare our unqualified confidence in the Military Governor of
Eastern Nigeria, Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, and assure him
of our unreserved support for the way and manner he has handled the
crisis in the country.

So help us God.

Note from this resolution that the declaration of Biafra pwas predated by Aburi Accord and was cited here as a reason for the declaration but Aluko in his interview turned it the other way round. He said Ojukwu first declared Biafra and then turned around and told him that we can still talk whereby he now recommended Aburi. This historical falsehood is enough to throw away the whole interview. But let's continue

let us stop sensationalising issues here,i am sure you will agree with me that the coup led by major k.nzeogwu where the leading lights of the northerners including one of their wives were killed(sir abubakar tafawa balewa/sir ahmadu bello and his wife) amongst other northerners pre-dated any of the incident you have listed your own zip who should be labelled the betrayer lived to a ripe old age,ojukwu lived to a ripe old age yet the people who it is still widely agreed would have pulled the north out of the quagmire of poverty and illiteracy were wiped out was the wife a military personnel? what would you have said if you learnt boko haram murdered bianca onoh ojukwu pls?.or do you need proof of this as well?

while i am not justifying the actions of the north,they did not just wake up one day and start killing the easterners,they did this as a result of the nzeogwu coup.
besides the republican nature of the average igbo unlike other parts of nigeria means that they prefer to make decisions concerning them directly as opposed to representatives doing so for them, hence the fact that representatives made such a major decision in itself has validated prof sam aluko's stance or do you disbelieve this assertion?

the man was being asked a question by a reporter conducting an interview,so if he wasn't relating events in chronological order, then that should be the fault of the reporter who didn't arrange his questions well. that is not enough to call his accounts inaccurate.in fact you and others here have unwittingly validated many of the man's points so whats the issue here?

houvest:

Your second rebuttal was this :'its easy for people like you to say,because you have not witnessed ordinary secret cult clashes where blood is shed talk less of a war, ask anyone who has been involved in a war and they will tell you that the strongest fearless become little babies, at this time you are glibly saying your igbos were shouting for more weapons,they were demoralised,hungry,hounded by nigerian soldiers a blockade against food ,medical supplies even the western powers deserted them living in bushes there were even reports of cannibalism going on and in your own reasoning they will still be crying to fight more?'

Now note what Aluko said that I tried to dispute:


'But I was going almost every month to Enugu, Nnewi or Onitsha to see him. What worried me, as I told him, was that whenever I was going from Onitsha to Enugu or Onitsha to Nnewi, soldiers who are eastern soldiers would say: “Doctor, please tell Governor we don’t want to fight. [b]We have suffered enough.[/b] We don’t want to fight.” So, I will always tell him: “Emeka, the people you say no power in Africa can stop, are not willing to fight. They are not with you 100 per cent. This is what they tell me.” He said he knew but there was no going back and that he had secured the confidence of the French, British, the Americans and some African countries. I said: “Don’t rely on Western powers. They are talking to you now because you are controlling the oil. Immediately there is war and they take the oil from you, they will desert you. It is because the oil is in the East and you are military governor in the East. But with what I see, immediately those in Rivers and Cross Rivers desert you and they link with the Federal Government and the Federal Government take those places from you, Britain, America and France will leave you,” which is what they did.

So from this can you not see that at this point the shooting war had not started? So your rebuttal using  the situation in war-torn  Biafra is moot. If Aluko had said this happened sometime after the shooting war had started and the suffering in Biafra had started, It will have been more believable.

well sir,i suggest you note the bolded.where have they suffered enough?the bolded shows they have suffered casualties and were not willing to fight . this is not peculiar to the eastern soldiers,during the second world war,while hitler urged his soldiers to fight to the death even though they did and died of cold,hunger they continued to complain and some even surrendered to the american led alliance and begged not to fight anymore.
i don't need to remind you at that stage what the igbos had lost through the massacre, and why soldiers could have said this.
i will repeat again that war in whatever guise is the ugliest thing you can imagine. i have spoken to those who were involved in the kosovo war(albanians i met) and a liberian, ethiopeans/Eritreans(who led the longest civil war in africa)and they are all agreed on the fact that they would never wish war on their greatest enemy

houvest:

Now your next rebuttal was the following:


'if you read through your own comments,you have already contradicted yourself, while you disagree with prof alum's assertions that the cross river and rivers e.t.c were against biafra,you have also admitted in the same comment that there were some bad blood going on,
how did you come about your own figures that it was only an handful??
so your account of only an handful should be believed and that of prof aluko should be swept aside because you are igbo??
the man made an assertion,you confirmed his assertion in your comment yet you say he is uttering fallacieslooooool
if you agree the matter of voting for the hausas was all part of the continuation of the war,thereby validating prof alum's assertion what then are you on about?


That question should be asked Aluko because he made the assertion. The onus of proof lies with the person who makes an assertion not the person trying to deny it. Please google this: semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui gait.

well he made an assertion and you made a counter assertion, in my previous retort i pointed out that you have validated some of prof alum's assertions by your comment hence the reason i pointed out the contradictions.the issue is this do you agree or disagree with the following

1.the cross river,rivers indigenes e.t.c did not fully support Biafra? yes or no pls bear in mind their geographical location which is like you gys backing them while having a full frontal war with nigerian soldiers?
the fact that there was noticeable dissent amongst them means treachery can never be ruled out which is the point the prof was making how big/powerful is the biafran army to face the might of the nigerian army on virtually 2/3 sides and then quell the cross river,rivers mini revolt behind them?

2.do you agree that a large number of them wanted self determination as well precisely because they don't trust the igbos and didn't want to move from subjugation under nigeria to subjugation under the igbos? remember they own the oil in contention here not the igbo.

houvest:

I gave evidence to support my denial of Aluko assertion but he gave nothing for his assertion except that it was what he saw as he moved around in the east. Is that enough proof?

sire,this might not be enough proof in itself,but the fact that supporting accounts of his has been severally validated will render his verbal and visual proof/accounts enough, pls note that by virtue of the man's ethnicity and professional standing including his relationship with the main actors,he could afford to be neutral and also involved in the whole process,
this is not a strange occurrence,in the world war supposed enemies had mutual friends who were neutral. the eminent banking family the rotschilds were mutual friends and business partners of hitler's govt and also the american led alliance their banks were also prominent in france and other european countries at this time.same thing with the coca cola led by woodruff who supported both hitler while running a thriving business in america and other western countries

houvest:

But I told you that  1/a cross river man was at one time the  governor of Eastern Nigeria not an Igbo man.

the prof stated and you also confirmed by your earlier comments that the bad blood was not full blown as at that time,besides zip being an important entity in the east didn't stop him from abandoning your biafra cause and crossing over to the nigerian side?

houvest:

2/Effiong a, across riverman was Ojukwus second in command.

banjo was an integral part of ojukwu's inner military circle yet he is yoruba?

houvest:

3/All parts of the eastern region had representatives in the Eastern Consultative Assembly that passed the resolution  for the declaration of Biafra and fought for it.

like i have stated earlier,you and i know that the political nature of the east is totally different in the sense that they operate a republican form of governance.unlike other parts of nigeria they hold their igwes to account and always get fully involved directly in every decision concerning them hence the fact that representatives made such a serious decision on their behalf to me is not enough that they fully support it they simply went along because the only other choice was risk the ire of rampaging northerners

houvest:

4/Refugees from Ijaw ran to us and lived with us inour village house when their area fell to Nigeria. They ran to Imo instead of defecting to the Nigerian side. This shows you that they were not all against Igbos or Biafra as Aluko tried to paint.

this is not in itself enough, the popular bishop mike okonkwo's life was saved in lagos when the igbos were being massacred by a yoruba family friend the man is still alive today if you will like to confirm.
i know an hausa friend from adamawa whose dad also saved many igbos during this war this does not conclusively prove that the hausa or yoruba fully supported biafra surely?

houvest:

I let you know that there were also some against it even among Igbos so the qustion is what are you on about?

the bolded has shown and validated some of the professor's assertions concerning this issue so what is it exactly you are trying to say sire?
are you disputing the fact that the cross river indigenes didn't support the biafra cause as they didn't fully see themselves having a sense of belonging?
i won't ask you the question of them supporting the biafra cause because you have answered that in the above bolded comment in not so many words

houvest:

I showed you that voting for hausas was post civil war not before the civil war and that was only during the second republic. Before the war they always voted for Zik-an Igboman so how could Aluko say those about them. In the 3rd republic they voted for Abiola. In the 4th Republic, they voted for Obasanjo, then Yaradua, then GEJ. So how are they always voting for hausas who also kill them as they kill Igbo as Aluko asserted.

the voting pattern might very well be erratic,but
1.it still validates the professor's point
2.he was using this as one of his reasons not the main reason so its not enough for you to hinge the totality of his assertions on this minor point

houvest:

Your next point was this:


'the eastern consultative assembly did not conduct a general consensus amongst the generality of the igbos to ask if they wanted to pull out or not neither did ojukwu.the fact that they supported it does not translate to them wholeheartedly supporting it,
the british,french,americans all made a point of protesting against the iraq invasion in britain we even had the largest anti war demonstration,this didn't stop tony blair,george bush/nato alliance forging ahead anyway, after the criticisms,the half truths discovered e.t.c the people had no choice but to support the soldiers waging war so you are now saying that come 20/30/40/50 yrs from now a brit or french man can stand up and say that the country fully supported the invasion??
RElli!'

Okay now you agree that it was the Eastern Consultative assembly that made the resolution for Biafra not Ojukwu. Ok then.

i have never disagreed with this,i however think and still do based on the available accounts that ojukwu initiated,and was the driving force and most committed to it.
how many of the eastern consultative assembly committed their life savings and properties to the biafran cause?

houvest:

But however did you arrive at what you wrote above. These were representatives of the people voted in by the people. There was no dissent among them. Not one. Did you want them to conduct a referendum before they know the peoples mind. The torn limbs, headless bodies, pregnant women ripped open mothers arriving with their headless infants in their arms, cries of widows widowers and orphans arriving everyday by train from the North with their harrowing tales of midnight visits by the northern mobs, misery, agony written all over them while Gowon was playing russian roulette in complete indifference or even acquiscence all helped to fuel the fury added to the treating of the Aburi Accord with levity by Gowon and his men  was  was all the referendum you needed.

this is precisely the point and the issue prof aluko was dragging with ojukwu,
first i have stated the reason why i believe the eastern consultative forum cannot make major decisions for the east i.e their nature
if you note what bianca ojukwu quipped in a recent interview she said and i quote(not word for word) the igbos are like wild horses who cannot be held down by one leader and goes on to say it requires dialogue and wisdom.
prof aluko also stated the same thing in this interview where he warned ojukwu that he cannot force his opinions on his people but rather be loyal to them. this reasons including the reasons adduced above  why i don't agree.

secondly you stated that the torn limbs,headless bodies e.t.c is enough of a consensus. I'm sorry but anyone who makes a major decision such as a civil war based on those sentiments does not deserve to be a leader.hitler as bloodthirsty as he was went through dialogue and several motions before declaring war
this was precisely why i asked you that should the likes of ty danuma,jerimiah useni e.t.c all throw caution to the wind and use the incidents of pregnant women's bowels sliced open,children and babies' heads smashed on floors families wiped out as a justification for war ?
this is not something i am just saying we have all seen what the middle belt from jos and environs to kaduna e.t.c have lost and are losing
we know ty danjuma is wealthy enough to sponsor a small african nation talk less of middle belt.

the aburi accord was handled in a bad and shoddy manner agreed,but still negotiations and consultations would have eventually resolved the issue.the yorubas almost got to the point ojukwu was then during and after the death of abiola still negotiations started and here we see the result rightly or wrongly but at least there were minimal bloodshed. who knows if ojukwu could have been able to negotiate a stronger federal presence leading to an igbo presidency if he had not opted for the biafra option?
the south south who are the junior partners in the biafran experiment have the presidency now yet the ibos who have the balance of power financially and politically amongst the two are yet to even smell it?

there were several options ojukwu and the forum could have negotiated for,e.g what i call regional federalism .he was not realistic enough and naive  to realise no nation worth its salt would ever open their eyes and watch a small section of the whole country appropriate the south south and the resources to itself and then saunter off to form a separate nation, it would have been a different case and outcome if the igbos owned the oil, we see the south south militants rather than being wiped out were negotiated with and an agreement sorted with them even by the iron willed obasanjo because they owned the resources not trying to strong arm it from the owners.
same goes for south sudan they directly owned the oil

houvest:

Good that you glossed over and did not try to rebutt what I wrote about the falacies about the 1983 elections, the excuses for reneging on Aburi and his claim that the superpowers supported Biafra ab initio

i don't need to gloss over anything sire,because the main reason for this thread and this debate is precisely the intent of professor aluko's interview,including the validity.
i dont dispute the 1983 election,but i have sought to point out and correct what i see as your inaccuracies.
irrespective of the excuses for reneging on the aburi accord you have to realise that gown was not infallible,
agreed that gowon gave too much away to a smarter man,nevertheless egos should have been set aside and another round of negotiations entered into to avert civil war.
if the south south stood by the accord signed in 1967 then we should have been at war.
if isaac boro stood by the declaration which by the way was before biafra we should have been at war.

do you honestly think the western powers have some sentiments for biafra if oil was not involved?
pls tell me you don't because we both know that would be incredibly naive,
even if we were not present during biafra,iraq,libya is enough proof of what professor aluko was asserting

houvest:

but your parting shot on Zik is noted but the issue here is The analysis of Aluko's interview about an alleged tight friend which he kept till he died. Since his tight friend is not here to agree with or refute his claims, morality lays a burden on us ,the living ,to surgically analyse it to see whether it stands or falls. Nobody is hounding him but since he has thrown his gauntlet down, it has to be accepted. He did not provide any recorded evidence nor written proofs so it is just his words and dont you think that after 44 years and at the age of 84, some details may have got mixed up or recast in a way not entirely true. Analyses attempt to recover the truth in the story.

Thank you.

oh i see,so you can glibly slide on past zik's "sins" as it were and then harp on a man who was stating events as he witnessed it?
let me ask you,if this was cc onoh.ajuluchukwu or any of the old guard making these assertions will anyone doubt their accounts?
secondly i hope you realise many of your old men including ojukwu's family are alive and well to disprove professor aluko's account?
professor aluko is not just an ordinary nigerian,he is an eminent nigerian who son is great in his own right hence at his age will not seek national nor ethnic relevance by making up stories about ojukwu.google his name or research on it and find out his precedence before casting aspersions on him
pls bear with me any typos was multi tasking

Limaoscar:

I don't belief a darn thing Prof Aluko has said. Especially all this long story potraying Ojukwu as a man who didn't have a mind of His own. Bouncing off his thoughts/decisions on a man who waited till His death (when He can't challenge the Article) to push-out a an article on the war.

If It turns out most of His accounts here are not true or that He actually betrayed Ojukwu then He'd probably lose all the respect I had for Him.

I am not Ibo, I am from Cross River but my Dad was close to Philip Effiong and Ojukwu  and left Lagos to fight on the Biafran side. He returned after the Civil war in 1970 .

Of all the stories my Dad 's told us and books and some very confidential memoirs He has about the war at our home. I didn't see any with reference to Prof. Aluko playing the role of a confidant or private adviser to Ojukwu or even reference in passing saying the Prof was as relevant to Dim  Ojukwu  as He's claimed here, damn!!!

To  even infer that Ojukwu was forced into leading Biafra, that Biafran Soldiers didn't want to fight, that He helped Ojukwu chose Aburi, that He told Ojukwu this and that, and how He was a mediatotraitor is all too wooly for me jare, kilode de?

Thank you my brother!
I am so grateful to you because there are people in Nairaland who are hell bent on not giving credit to valiant and pro-Biafra people in Cross-River/Akwa-Ibom and Rivers states parts of the 1967 Nigeria.
Some of them revel at the lie that Biafra was only an Igbo affair. It is deeply painful, knowing that ALL Easterners were targets of massacres in Northern Nigeria.

All Easterners collectively decided (through their Eastern Assembly) to secede from Nigeria. Smart folks from non-Igbo parts of Eastern Nigeria have since figured out that the only thing that gives them true respect in Nigeria is when they acknowledge with pride what their people did in support of Biafra. All those who distance from their Biafran legacy are treated with ignominy in Nigeria because Northern Nigerians know the truth about that era.

The war has been fought and lost, but I know that those who fought against Biafra have some deep respect for ALL BIAFRANS. It is something we should all be proud of and always identify with. Only then are we accorded our due respect in Nigeria.

Thank you once more.

Most forum I know are very constructive except for nairaland. My people will never learn because tribalism still exist in most people in Nigeria.

Second world war was started by Adolf Hitler but you do not see the whole world or the Europe blaming the Germans for the war. Everything in Nigeria has resulted into blaming the Yoruba. But,these people you are blaming partronize your business in the west, they accomodate you,never kill you like the northerners,yet you continue to say all the bad things about them.

I think it is time to be sincere to yourselves and list all the negative attributes affecting you as a people,may be you can reason together as one and stop the blame game. Your future is more important than your past.Please swallow your pride and reason.

@ onlytruth ,I 'll say virtually everybody was awed at the effontry of the Biafran and no doubt respects it but one question is, do you guys respect other people too? The blaming game and unwarranted hatred must and should have ended long time ago. You must move on if nothing it is really instructive for you to just look at the small piece written above work on that , the future is too good , and bigger than the hatred you continue to brew against Yorubas, It has and will continue to lead you NOWHERE as a people.

The Iboman likes to blame everyone else for his woes

If its not Hausa, its Yoruba, Its Middle belt or South South

What a bunch of losers

It continues to amaze me when I read some of the things our fellow Yorubans are writting against Ojukwu. One of the Main issues Ojukwu had with Gowon was that it was wrong for him to take over power when there was Brig. Ogundipe, a Yoruba man and the most senior officer in the Military then; The North is your friend eeh? Most religious crises that erupted in Kano claimed the lives of SE, SS and SW as long as you are not a Muslim, our political Ladders (not leaders) would sit in their offices, making calls to their counterpart, 'Please someone should stop this killing', it is Ojukwu who would go to kano, meet the Emir and together the matter would be resolved. The North is your friend eeh? Our great leader Pa Awo was prisoned by the north, released by Ojukwu. How about Abiola and the wife and the treatment they received from the North. Indeed the North is your friend just as Police is your friend.

The fact remains a fact. Like it or not Ojukwu was an Igbo man with a difference.

LucaBrasi wrote:
well seeing as the topic under debate is the intent behind prof sam aluko's interview,what sources again is required?i have read the interview from top to buttom hence the reason i posted a retort to your comment

It may not be possible to prove the intent of a man so that is not my concern here. My concern is this and I quote:

the issue here is The analysis of Aluko's interview about an alleged tight friend which he kept till he died. Since his tight friend is not here to agree with or refute his claims, morality lays a burden on us ,the living ,to surgically analyse it to see whether it stands or falls. Nobody is hounding him but since he has thrown his gauntlet down, it has to be accepted. He did not provide any recorded evidence nor written proofs so it is just his words and dont you think that after 44 years and at the age of 84, some details may have got mixed up or recast in a way not entirely true. Analyses attempt to recover the truth in the story.

Again saying that you do not require to cite sources to back up your retorts is so unscientific that I am tempted to drop this dialogue entirely. Are we just going to be going on back and forth only on your opinions and that of Aluko? HE PROVIDED NO SOURCES. YOU HAVE MADE NO ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE ANY. So how can we continue? It will be an endless discussion without any fruits. I will only leave you with this. Aluko in his interview made three historically false assertions among others 1/ That Biafra was declared before Aburi conference. 2/ That NPN lost only one senatorial seat in the East in 1983 (Ojukwu's seat) 3/ That Russia and Britain originally supported Biafra. These are enough to throw away the story as hogwash.
These are verifiable falsehoods.

Since you do not want to be scientific with this dialogue by bringing sources to prove his other assertions but to rely on stories about Danjuma, Zik, Ajuluchukwu, Bishop Okonkwo , Liberia, Eritrea, George Bush,,and completely digressing on civil war being about SS oil, Igbos not having oil, Igbos not haven smelt the presidency, Nzeogwu etc  I will leave for other pursuits. Probably folks like Katsumoto will come up with sources to back up the prof who by the way is wellknown and does not need to be googled.( My favourite definition of economics in secondary school was not that of Adam Smith but Aluko's which said that Economics is simply common sense made difficult) However this is not Economics but politics. And here whatever you try to define will be subjected to thorough analyses.

Regards to your boss Don Corleone,the other caporegimes and of course Mario Puzzo.

Hmmmm,

Memorandum from…
AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS

15 East 84th St. , New York , N. Y. 10028 TR 9-4500

December 27, 1968


To: Chapter and Division Presidents

Chapter and Division CIA Chairmen
CRC’s
Field Staff


From: Phil Baum, Director

Commission on International Affairs


I am pleased to enclose a comprehensive memorandum outlining the background and present status in Nigeria/Biafra. This memorandum was prepared by the staff of the Commission on International Affairs because of numerous requests for information about the origin, extent and implications of the Biafran conflict.

We hope this document will provide some insight both into the beginnings of the present war and of the feasibility of community action to help bring about its resolution. Jewish community relations councils have participated in some measure in various relief activities designed to provide food and medical supplies to Biafra despite the fact that such relief activities are not usually within the purview of community relations councils.

However, private relief endeavors by themselves are proving woefully inadequate and of diminishing value in effectively preserving life. New initiatives including some going beyond relief may now be necessary. Our memorandum is intended to help clarify the propriety of Jewish communal participation in these activities. The scope of Jewish community relations work is always difficult to define. A tragedy of this scale requires us to reconsider our opportunities and obligations in the midst of vast human travail.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE TRAGEDY OF BIAFRA




COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS

15 East 84th Street

New York, N. Y.

December 15, 1968




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THE TRAGEDY OF BIAFRA


Why This War? 3
A. Indigenous Differences Among the Peoples of Nigeria 3
B. Conflicts During the Colonial Era 6
C. Conflicts Since Independence 8
D. The Ironsi Take-Over 11
E. The Counter-Coup and the Mass Killings 13
Biafran Secession and the Beginning of the Military Phase 15
The Progress of the Campaign 16
The Conflicting Claims 18
A, The Case for Nigeria 18
B. The Case for Biafra 20
Is There Genocide? 22
The Position of the Major Powers 25
A. Great Britain 25
B. Soviet Union 26
C. he United States 27
D. France 29
E. China 30
The Position of African States 31
OAU Attempts to Resolve the Conflict 31
The Attitudes of Private American Groups 33
A. The American Left 33
B. American Negro Organizations 33
C. Statements by Jewish Groups 36
Efforts of Church, Religious and Relief Organizations 38
Further Steps 40



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



THE TRAGEDY OF BIAFRA




For more than a year, a little noticed but nonetheless savage and tragic war has been going on between the Federal Government of Nigeria and the former Eastern Region of that country which, in May 1967, proclaimed its independence as the Republic of Biafra. Until recent months this conflict has commanded little public attention. This is despite the fact that this war is already responsible for more deaths than have occurred in Vietnam and is now causing the death of thousands of people each day through starvation. Although death through starvation is not uncommon in many areas of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the dimensions of the Nigeria/Biafra tragedy are far greater than the “ordinary” famines in under-developed areas. Moreover, the mass deaths now occurring result in part from political and military factors that prevent the distribution even of food which is presently available.
In September of this year, the International Committee of the Bed Cross reported that 8-10,000 people were starving to death each day as the result of this war, and. that the situation was rapidly deteriorating.
( N.Y. Post, Sept. 28, 1968) On October 31, a relief worker for the World Council of Churches reported that 25,000 people would die each day if the war continued for another month. This means that if the present situation is allowed to continue, 6,000,000 people will have died by next summer. ( N.Y. Times, Oct. 31, 1968)

- 1 -


The self-evident humanitarian concerns are reason enough to compel our attention. But there are other reasons as well. The war in Biafra exemplifies in microcosm areas of stress that continue to agitate relations between states in many parts of the world. They include—the demands of competing nationalisms; the ambiguities of the principle of self-determination and the lack of clarity as to its limits; the continuing influence of religious considerations in contemporary politics; the tentative character of ideological groupings; the uncertainty by governments as to their own national self-interest and the emergence of incongruous and improbable alliances.
Similarly, the Biafran case demonstrates the paralysis of existing international institutions when it comes to mobilizing effective and swift relief. It is evident that the international community still has not forged mechanisms adequately responsive to imperative human need. Finally, the absence of sustained protest over the immense loss of life in Biafra indicates the urgent necessity for broadening the base of public interest. There has been an almost palpable public silence on this issue. This silence has characterized even some who in other circumstances have paraded a seeming concern over any spilling of blood and any taking of life. There apparently exists, in many places, an occasional and opportunistic sense of compassion, allowed to be expressed only when consonant with some overriding political purpose. Left to itself this intermittent sentiment clearly will not do much to prevent the genocide which is imminent in Biafra.
Mobilization of public opinion in part has been impeded by a lack of readily available information about the details of the conflict and its background. This memorandum is prepared in the hope of providing

- 2 -

better understanding of the nature and scope of the present war and. of some of the possibilities for alleviating the attendant suffering. Much of the information deriving from Nigeria is contradictory and incomplete and access to objective first-hand sources is difficult. We do not therefore purport to prescribe solutions or to forecast the eventual outcome. Our only intention is to help improve public understanding of what is taking place. Our hope is that this will evoke a more concerted and urgent sense of concern both within and outside the Jewish community than has thus far been forthcoming.

Why This War?
A. Indigenous differences among the peoples of Nigeria
The causes of the Nigerian Biafran war—which Nigerians describe as a civil war and Biafrans, a war between two nations—are exceedingly complex. More than fifty years ago, Great Britain artificially carved an area out of West Africa containing hundreds of different groups and arbitrarily unified it, calling it Nigeria. Although the area contained many different groups, three were predominant: the Hausa-Fulani, which formed about 65% of the peoples in the northern part of the territory; the Yoruba, which formed about 75% of the population in the southwestern part; and the Ibo, which formed between 60-65% of the population in the southeast
Each of these groups was so distinctive politically, religiously, culturally, and socially, as to constitute what in Europe in most circumstances would be thought of as a separate nation. The profound differences between them account, in a large sense, for the disintegration of the Nigerian Federation during the past several years.
The semi-feudal and Islamic Hausa-Fulani in the North were traditionally ruled by an autocratic, conservative Islamic hierarchy

- 3 -

consisting of some thirty-odd Emirs who, in turn, owed their allegiance to a supreme Sultan. This Sultan was regarded as the source of all political power and religious authority.
The Yoruba political system in the southwest, like that of the Hausa-Fulani, also consisted of a series of monarchs. The Yoruba monarchs, however, were less autocratic than those in the North, and the political and social system of the Yoruba accordingly allowed for greater upward mobility based on acquired rather than inherited wealth and title.
The Ibo in the southeast, in contrast to the two other groups, lived in some six hundred autonomous, democratically-organized vi1lages. Decisions among the Ibo were made by a general assembly in which every man could participate.
The different political systems among these three peoples produced highly divergent sets of customs and values. The Hausa-Fulani commoners, having contact with the political system only through their village head who was designated by the Emir or one of his subordinates, did not view political leaders as amenable to influence. Political decisions were to be obeyed without question. This highly centralized and authoritarian political system elevated to positions of leadership persons willing to be subservient and loyal to superiors—the same virtues required by Islam for eternal salvation. One of the chief functions of the traditional political system was to maintain the Islamic religion. Hostility to economic and social innovation was therefore deeply rooted.
In contrast to the Hausa-Fulani, the Ibo often participated directly in the decisions which affected their lives. They had a lively awareness of the political system and regarded it as an instrument for

- 4 -

achieving their own personal goals. Status was acquired through the ability to arbitrate disputes that might arise in the village, and through acquiring rather than inheriting wealth. With their emphasis upon achievement, individual choice, and democratic decision-making, the challenges of modernization for the Ibos entailed responding to new opportunities in traditional ways. For the Hausa-Fulani, however, modernization required and still does, a complete change in values and ways of life. The Yoruba were somewhere between the Hausa-Fulani and the Ibos regarding their need for achievement and emphasis upon individual choice.
These tradition-derived differences were perpetuated and, perhaps, even enhanced by the British system of colonial rule in Nigeria. In the North, the British found it convenient to rule indirectly through the Emirs, thus perpetuating rather than changing the indigenous authoritarian political system. As a concomitant of this system, Christian missionaries were excluded from the North, and the area thus remained virtually closed to Western education and influence. During the ensuing years, the Northern Emirs, thus were able to maintain traditional political and religious institutions, while limiting social change. As a result, the North, at the time of independence in 1960, was by far the most underdeveloped area in Nigeria with a literacy rate of 2% as compared to 16% in the East and 18% in the West (literacy in Arabic script, learned in connection with religious education, was higher).
In the South, and particularly in the Yoruba areas, the British were able to establish themselves more firmly and Christian missionaries rapidly introduced Western forms of education. Consequently, the Yoruba were the first group in Nigeria to become significantly modernized and they provided the first African civil servants, doctors, lawyers, and other technicians and professionals.

- 5 –

In Ibo areas, missionaries were introduced at a later date because of British difficulty in establishing firm control over the highly autonomous Ibo villages. (Audrey Chapman, “Civil War in Nigeria,” Midstream, Feb 1968). However, the Ibo people, highly individualistic and achievement-oriented, took to Western education zealously. By the 1940’s they had transformed themselves into one of the most educated, wealthiest, and politically unified groups in Nigeria and presented a serious challenge to Yoruba predominance in the civil service and the professions. Moreover, severe population pressure in the Ibo homeland combined with an intense desire for economic improvement, drove thousands of Ibos to other parts of Nigeria in search of work. Many went to the Northern areas where their entrepreneurial and technical skills were in particular demand among the traditional and generally uneducated population. There they took up positions as merchants, government civil servants, and clerks in private European companies. In time the Ibos came to occupy in Nigeria a position somewhat analogous to that of the Indians in East Africa or the Jews in Eastern Europe. In the North and to a lesser extent in the West they came to be looked upon as alien outsiders occupying positions in the economy that “rightfully” belonged to tile indigenous inhabitants of the area. They were perceived as aggressive and pushy, and were envied and resented because of the rapidity with which they acquired education and wealth.

B. Conflicts During the Colonial Era
The political division of Nigeria during the colonial period into three regions—North, West and East—exacerbated the already well-developed economic, political, and social competition among

- 6 -

Nigeria’s different ethnic groups. For the country was divided in such a way that the North had slightly more population than the other two regions combined. On this basis the Northern Region was allocated a majority of the seats in the Federal Legislature established by the colonial authorities.
Within each of the three regions the dominant ethnic groups—the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, and Ibo respectively—formed political parties that were largely regional and tribal in character: the Northern People’s Congress (NPC) in the North; the Action Group in the West (AG): and the National Conference of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) in the East. Although these parties were not exclusively homogeneous in terms of their ethnic or regional make-up, the present disintegration of Nigeria results, largely from the fact that these parties were primarily based in one region and one tribe. To simplify matters, we will refer to them here as the Hausa, Yoruba, and Ibo-based; or Northern, Western and Eastern parties.
During the 1940’s and 1950’s the Ibo and Yoruba parties were in the forefront of the fight for independence for Britain They also wanted an independent Nigeria to be organized into several small states so that the conservative and backward North could not dominate the country. Northern leaders, however, fearful that independence would mean political and economic domination by the more Westernized elites in the South, preferred the perpetuation of British rule. As a condition for accepting independence, they demanded that the country continue to be divided into three regions with the North having a clear majority. Ibo and Yoruba leaders, anxious to obtain an independent country at all cost, accepted the Northern demands.

- 7 -

C. Conflicts Since Independence
Nigeria finally achieved independence in October 1960 and appeared, for a while, to have a bright political and economic future. When no one party received a majority in the pre-independence elections, a Northern-Eastern coalition was formed which afforded the country political stability. Meanwhile the gross national product continued to move steadily upward and soon Nigeria, with some 55 million people constituting the most populous nation in Africa, developed a reputation as the showcase of democracy and economic stability on the continent.
This stability was short-lived. Within a few years, explosive forces always present covertly, began to surface. Since 1962, Nigeria has been rocked by widespread violence, internal disorder, and now by a savage civil war,. This violence reflects, in essence, Northern attempts to maintain control of the country in the face of increasingly intense opposition from the South and particularly from the Ibo peoples. Within a period of three years—from 1962-1965—the Northern-dominated Federal Government instigated a split in the Yoruba party which rendered the Action Group virtually ineffective; invalidated a nation-wide census which reportedly showed the two Southern regions to have outstripped the North; and blatantly rigged two elections in order to perpetuate their control of the country and of the Western Region which they gained after rendering the Action Group ineffective. 1
The split of the Yoruba-based party was instigated by the North because its leader, Chief Obofemi Awolowo, favored unremitting

________________________
1. Audrey R. Chapman, “Civil War in Nigeria ,” Midstream, January, 1968 p. 214; Richard Sklar and C. S. Whitaker, Jr, Federal Republic of Nigeria ,” T in Gwendolen M Carter, ed., National Unity and Regionalism in Eight African States (Ithaca, N.Y. Cornell University Press, 1966), p. 120.

- 8 -


struggle against the Northern-dominated Government under the banner of “African Socialism.” He also made strenuous efforts to attract to his party minorities and other disaffected groups in the Northern and Eastern Regions, thus violating the tacit agreement to respect existing spheres of influence.
Thereafter the Federal government moved more decisively to consolidate its strength. Claiming to have uncovered a plan for a military coup the Northern-dominated Federal government arrested Awolowo and sentenced him to ten years in prison. Similarly in 1962 the Federal government arbitrarily moved to invalidate a national census which in terms of their interests came up with the wrong results. Although the exact findings of the 1962 census never were officially published, its results reportedly demonstrated that the two regions of the South had outstripped the North in total population.2 This was an extremely sensitive matter as the census was to be the basis for apportioning seats in the Federal Parliament. Until then the North had been assigned a sure majority. At any rate, the Federal Government conducted a new census the results of which were predictably favorable to Northern interests, They were announced in early 1964: North, 29.7 million; East, 12.3 million; West, 10.2 million; Mid-West, 2.5 million (this region was newly created in 1963); and the Federal Territory of Lagos, 675,000.

The new census, in turn, was challenged by the Ibos as rigged and inaccurate and shattered the Eastern-Northern coalition which until then had managed to maintain some semblance of political

_______________

2. Sklar and Whitaker, loc. Cit.; Audrey R. Chapman, “Civil War in Nigeria,” Midstream, January, 1968.

- 9 -


stability in the country. This bitter controversy stimulated a rearrangement of political forces in Nigeria. By 1964, only four years after independence, the country was largely split along North-South, conservative-progressive lines.
The national elections of December 1964, in which these coalitions were to meet for the first time, was, perhaps, the immediate cause of Nigeria’s disintegration. Basically, it was alleged that the party representing Southern elements was not allowed to compete in the North and the Northern-controlled Western region. According to one report, 4,000 of its members were arrested including 40 nominees for the Federal Parliaments.3 The party thereupon demanded a postponement of the elections and a thorough investigation. Prime Minister Balewa, a Northern Muslim, refused. The party then responded with a boycott of the elections and an announcement that it would not recognize any government based upon its results. Consequently only 20% of the electorate participated in the 1964 vote as opposed to 80% in 1959. In effect, a large segment of the people had withdrawn legitimacy from the government. Nigerian unity appeared to have been shattered. Only intensive negotiations between Federal and regional leaders leading to agreement on a “broadly-based” government averted a crisis—however temporarily. The underlying problem of sectionalism, corruption and illegal practices remained.
The following year elections again were blatantly rigged, this time in the Western Region. Thousands of illegal ballots were found in the possession of government officials. Impartial observers

___________
3. Chapman, op. cit. p. 24.

- 10 -

widely agreed that the election returns were falsified to give the Northern-controlled party an overwhelming victory4 but one completely lacking in credibility. This time widespread violence followed. Prime Minister Balewa, instead of responding to appeals for a new election to be supervised by the army rather than Western Government-appointed officials, ordered the army to restore law and order.


D. The Ironsi Take-Over

The idea of a democratic Nigeria had proven to be a myth. Vast numbers of people were disenchanted with the results of independence and the widespread corruption among politicians. Elements among the South, the students, the southern intelligentsia, and the army officer corps were particularly disaffected, In January 1966 a number of young army officers—primarily Ibo—attempted to overthrow the Federal Government. In the process they killed Prime Minister Balewa, Northern Premier Sir: Ahmadu Bello (also the Sardauna of Sokoto—Islam’s highest religious leader in Nigeria), and a number of Northern army officers. Rumors had it that Army Commander Maj.-Gen. Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi—also as Ibo--was involved in the coup. In any case, a rump Cabinet invited Ironsi to head a provisional military government. Ironsi “accepted” and two days later the leader of the coup, Major Chukwama Nzeogwu pledged his loyalty to Ironsi. provided there would be no reprisals against him and his followers,.

The January coup and the Ironsi take-over were widely supported throughout Nigeria by youth groups, trade unions, businessmen, and even some Northerners. Most young and progressive elements hoped and expected

_______________

4. Sklar and Whitaker, op. cit., p.12

- 11 -

that the new military government would stop corruption and would institute those reforms necessary to unify the country and organize its economy on terms of national rather than regional needs. Immediately following the coup, the Nigerian student association in the United States met in International House in New York and sent a message of congratulations to the new leaders.
At the outset, General Ironsi faced a major dilemma. Could he and should he punish the instigators of the coup for assassinating the Federal Prime Minister, and the Premiers of the Western and Northern Regions? He had to bear in mind especially that the latter had been Islam’s revered religious leader and was generally acknowledged to be the power behind the Prime Minister himself. The Northern rank-and-file of the army were bitterly resentful over these murders, as well as the death of many Northern officers. However if Ironsi punished the young officers who had staged the coup, he would probably alienate the Ibo officers who formed about one-third of his officer corps, plus the whole southern intelligenstia who were fed up with the conservative, Northern-dominated and corrupt Federal Government.
Ironsi chose instead to attempt to heal the rifts in the army and country by instituting badly needed reforms. In May 1966, as part of this program, he abolished the Federal structure of government. But this proved his undoing. Many politicians and bureaucrats with vested interests in a Nigeria divided into regions vigorously opposed this move. They chose to see it as a bald attempt to consolidate Nigeria under Ibo domination. To support their suspicions, they pointed to the fact that almost all the officers who staged the coup leading to the Ironsi government were Ibos. Further, the politicians and officers killed in the coup

- 12 -

were almost all from the North arid West, while Ibo officials were left untouched.
Following the Ironsi take-over, ousted Hausa-Fulani bureaucrats, politicians and religious leaders, began to focus upon Ibos living in the North as responsible for all the problems that were beginning to face the North—from rising prices to the declining power of the Northern Region in the Federal Government. Two days after the Ironsi proclamation of a unified governmental structure, these elements organized riots in
several Northern cities resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Ibos and the forced exodus of thousands of others.5 This massacre fed upon the long-standing resentment of Ibos based upon their rapid accumulation of wealth and education.

E, The Counter-Coup and the Mass Killings
The idea of an Ibo take-over of the country gradually gained more and more credence and led to further unrest in an already disgruntled army, On July 29, 1966 Northern soldiers staged counter-coup, killing Ironsi, and about 400 Ibo officers. Colonel Yakubu Gowon, announced as new head of the government, immediately restored the federal structure yielding to the demands of the Northern politicians.
Many members of the Ibo elite who had occupied prominent positions coder Ironsi viewed this new coup as a re-establishment of Northern authoritarian control over Nigeria. They and the progressive Yorubas and others who had joined with them had not been able freely to compete for: power under the old regime. Now, their high hopes for reconstruction and modernization after the Ironsi coup were suddenly

___________

5. James O’Connell, “The Scope of the Tragedy.,Africa Report, February 1968, p.8.

- 13 -


dashed by a counter-coup scarcely half a year later, These frustrations were transformed into deep hatred and fear by the ruthless slaughter of hundreds of Ibos living in the North and of Ibo officers in the army,
Many Ibos fled to the Eastern Region convinced that only secession would afford them security as well as the opportunity to develop a politically coherent and economically vibrant nation. Half-formed notions about secession were transformed into grim determination after a veritable pogrom erupted in the North in September 1966, resulting in the slaughter of from 5,000 to 30,000 Ibos and other Easterners, depending upon the reports one reads. Nigerians claim that this massacre followed the killing of hundreds of Northerners resident in the East. Biafran supporters argue it was caused by Northern anger over a decision to break up the North into several smaller states, made by a constitutional conference arranged by General Gowon.
In any case, this mass slaughter left a deep scar on the Ibo people. Ibo leaders called for the return of all Ibos to their ancestral homeland and began serious preparations for secession. A January 1967 conference of leaders from all regions failed to produce lasting agreement on decentralization of the country. At that point, civil servants, teachers, newspaper reporters, university students and military officers—all disillusioned with the results of Independence—further galvanized public opinion for secession. A definite step was taken in March when the Government of the Eastern Region announced that all revenues collected on behalf of the Federal Government would be paid to the Treasury of the Eastern Region. The Federal Government, it was alleged, had refused to pay the salaries of refugee civil servants forced to flee their areas of employment,

- 14 -


and the East now had some 2 million refugees whose displacement from other parts of Nigeria was “irreversible.” Moreover, the Federal Government, it was alleged had refused to pay the East its statutory share of revenues for months.6
Faced with virtual secession, Colonel Gowon finally attempted to deal with grievances about Northern domination and also to appeal to minorities throughout Nigeria. He proposed that the Northern Region be broken up into six states, the East into three, and the West into two. The new states would coincide, to a large extent, with natural ethnic divisions. Notably, the East would be divided in such a way that the oil reserves would be located in states without an Ibo majority.

Biafran Secession and the Beginning of the Military Phase
Though the Ibo elites may have been satisfied with such a proposal a year or so before, they now felt that nothing short of a loose association of sovereign states could assuage their fears, On May 30, therefore, the Eastern Region proclaimed its independence as the Republic of Biafra.
In July 1966, Federal forces attempted to reassert control over the East. After a determined and successful defense, however, Biafran troops a month later moved across the Niger River into the Mid-West. Aided by Ibo officers and soldiers in that area, they installed a puppet government under a Mid-Western Ibo officer, Major Albert Okonwo. That region then proclaimed its independence as a second separate state. The disintegration of Nigeria appeared to be well under way.

_____________

6. O’Connell, op. cit., p.10

- 15 -

However, the Ibo advance apparently panicked residents of the predominantly Yoruba Western Region, particularly after Radio Biafra promised that the West would also be “liberated.” At that point, Chief Obofernis Awolowo, the old Yoruba leader of the national Opposition, who had been let out of jail and had accented a top civilian post with the Gowon government, rallied to the Federal Government many Yoruba leaders who had favored secession of the West. The Yoruba and Hausa-Fulani peoples along with minority groups in all the regions, are now apparently held together by anti-Ibo sentiment and common pursuit of the war. The Yoruba and the minorities have also been pleased by the new twelve-state structure decreed by Colonel Gowon which has resulted in the break-up of the formerly monolithic North.

The Progress of the Campaign
In the summer of 1967, Great Britain and the Soviet Union started to supply the Federal Government with modern planes, armored cars and other weapons. In September 1967, the Federal forces were able to retake the Mid-West and large-scale massacres of Ibos followed in which the Edo people of the region who had. been enraged by the Ibo take-over, participated to a large extent. The Federal .Army then pushed on into the East and during the course of the following year were able to occupy almost. all the non-Ibo areas of Biafra and almost: half of the Ibo homeland.

On September 8, 1968 , Colonel Gowon predicted that the war would be over in two months. However, similar predictions had been made by various observers for almost a year. On November 3, 1968 , just about two months after Gowon’s announcement, the New York Times

- 16 -


reported. that fresh supplies of arms from Gabon had enabled the Biafrans to put up stiffer resistance and even to counter-attack on some areas. At present, another extended stalemate seems in the offing.
It is impossible at this distance to make any firm surmise about the viability of continued Biafran resistance. Estimates by Nigerian authorities and by experts, journalists and observers from abroad that Biafran opposition would soon dissipate repeatedly have been proven inaccurate. On the other hand there has been a steady retreat by Biafran forces and it is clear that if this trend continues some point soon will be reached at which the remaining terrain will be inadequate to sustain organized operations by the Biafran army.
In recent months resistance has been reinforced by the fresh inpouring of arms commonly understood to be supplied by the French. Biafran military spokesmen visiting in this country firmly proclaim their ability to remain in the field as long as adequate weapons are provided. Assuming that the common conjecture about the contributions of the French forces is correct there is no guarantee that French policies will remain forever unchanged, especially in the light of the steady retreat of Biafran forces. The French government in other parts of the world has not hesitated to reverse its role as arms supplier when changing political circumstances so require.
Biafran officials declare that even if the point were to be reached. that formal field operations were no longer tenable, major resistance still would continue in the form of large-scale guerrilla activities. However this would mark an essential change in the character of the warfare and could suggest that the significant military phase was nearing a terminal stage. The fact is that at present guerilla activity

- 17 -

has not been sustained to any significant degree behind the Federal lines in occupied Ibo territory. Discounting the exaggerations natural to the partisans of each side, it would appear that some kind of major military campaign is likely to continue at least for many months, The New York Times of November 27 reports that “The new arms reaching Biafra, from what many here believe are French sources have so stiffened Biafran resistance that there is now little expectation of an early federal victory.” Meanwhile each day the issue remains unresolved tens of thousands confront the stark fact of imminent starvation.

The Conflicting Claims
A. The Case for Nigeria
Proponents of the Federal cause point principally to the alleged disintegrative effects of the Biafran secession on the rest of Nigeria and, indeed, on the rest of Africa They argue that if the Biafran secession were successful, Nigeria would soon dissolve into a multiplicity of states. This position in its extreme, was vividly portrayed by a member of the British House of Commons: “That we shall find, I believe, will be a sort of Latin American pattern in which certain strong expatriate companies---oil, tin and rubber companies--pay to preserve order in the limited area in which they operated and in other areas small military dictatorships will be set up which will be overthrown with regularity when there is a military mutiny or a bad harvest and the soldiers are not paid.” (House of Commons, August 27, 1968),
Supporters of Nigeria fear that Biafran success would encourage ethnic groups in other African countries to attempt secession, thus further balkanizing a continent already divided into a large number of tiny and barely viable nations. They also argue that minority groups

- 18 -

in the East. which form 35-40% of the population, do not favor an independent state in which they would allegedly be at the mercy of the more aggressive and numerous Ibos. The Federal Government, they claim, therefore has a moral responsibility not to abandon these peoples to Ibo domination. Mr. William Whitlock, British Under Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, stated before Parliament on August 27 that he believed the 5 million non-Ibos of the East wanted to remain within Nigeria. This view was supported by The Guardian of August 21, (Parliamentary Debates, pp. 32, 18),.
One leading supporter of the Nigerian cause, Father James O’Connell, Professor of Government at Ahmadu Bello University, sees the conflict as one between the Ibos of the East and the minorities in the rest of Nigeria. The latter, he claims, now control the Federal Government, sit on the richest oil fields, and provide the majority of the soldiers for the Federal army. Within the context of the new 12-state structure which Colonel Gowon has decreed, these minorities see a chance to escape from domination by the major ethnic groups which they experienced in the three regions of the old Federation. 0’Oonnell suggests they are as desperate to maintain a united Nigeria as the Ibos are to have their own country.7
Admitting finally that the old Federation was dominated by the North, Nigerian officials argue that they have, through the new 12-state structure, implemented the long-standing demands of the Ibo and Yoruba parties for a reorganization of the country in a way as to break up the Northern monolith.

_______________

7. O’Connell, op. cit., p.11

- 19 -

On: the basis of available evidence it is difficult clearly to determine the true sent-ments of the non-Ibos population in the former Eastern Region. Lloyd Garrison has reported in the New York Times Magazine of September 8 that tens of thousands of minority peoples fled behind Biafran lines when Federal troops attacked. However it is not clear whether this a the result of Biafran :propaganda about atrocities or an authentic expression of fear based upon actual killings. Federal authorities, for their part, claim that most of the non-Ibo peoples of the former East are back under Federal control and wish to remain that way.

B. The Case for Biafra
Proponents of Biafra emphasize that the absence of a sense of community and solidarity render a united Nigeria undesirable and unworkable. They stress what they describe as the immense cultural, social and religious differences between Biafrans and the rest of the Nigerians—particularly the traditional Islamic peoples of the North who dominated the Federal government since independence. The inherent right to self-determination, they claim, has been morally reinforced by the acts of pogrom and genocide perpetrated upon Biafrans by Northern Nigerians and others, with the connivance and complicity of the Federal authorities and police.
The Biafrans maintain that if ever a united Nigeria could have worked, the possibility was permanently wrecked by the massacre and mutilation of some 30,000 Easterners living in the North and elsewhere and the forced exodus of some two million others, How, they ask could they ever again entrust their security to a government which the logic of numbers insures would be dominated by the same elements [responsible for ?

- 20 –


the massacre of thousands of their people?
Colonel Gowon’s decree of a 12-state structure elicits particular rancor from. Biafran authorities who contend that it is designed to fragment the Ibo people into three different states and generally, to destroy the homogeneity they claim characterizes Biafra. Some believe that the division of the Ibos into three separate states would render them particularly vulnerable to persecution and massacre. They point in this regard, to the massacre of Ibos in the Mid-West in September 1967 after Biafran forces were dislodged from their occupation of the area
To the charge of Ibo domination over reluctant minorities, the Biafran authorities reply that the territory of the former Eastern Region of Nigeria is characterized by a high degree of cultural assimilation among the four major linguistic groups of the area:
the Ibo, Efik, Ijaw, and Ogoja. Bi-lingualism and intermarriage they claim, have made it difficult in many areas even to distinguish Ibos from non-Ibos. To support their claim that the non-Ibo peoples of the former Eastern Region are fully behind. Biafra, officials of that state assert that of the 30,000 Easterners massacred in 1966, some 10,000 were non-Ibos and of the 2 million who were forced to return home, nearly 480,000 were non-Ibo. Biafran officials further assert that the former Eastern Region use the only part of Federal Nigeria which did not experience .violent ethnic strife. Because of the well-developed sense of community and cultural assimilation, there are no genuine minorities in the region, only local communities and the needs of these communities are met by Administrative

- 21 -


System set up by the Biafran Government To further demonstrate the equity prevalent in the country, officials point out that seven of the thirteen Ministerial positions in the Government are occupied by non-Ibos.
Nigerian proposals of guarantee of the lives and property of Biafrans outside the East are rejected as insincere and unworkable, No Lagos Government, claim the Biafrans, would have the ability or the good faith to carry out such a guarantee. They could not, in effect, control long-standing ethnic hatreds arid jealousies which have developed over scores of years. The same argument is applied to suggestions for an international observer force. Such a force, Biafrans point out, could not stay in Nigeria forever, and. therefore could not obtain for Biafrans the kind of security which is their natural right. Only a sovereign state with control over its own police force, army and means of economic development can satisfy their aspirations for security, economic development and political equality. In reply to charges of balkanization they assert that Biafra, with its large oil reserves and its population of 14 million would be a highly viable country, and by no means a mini-state, particularly when compared to some other African, Asian and. Latin American states which are fully independent. For all these reasons Biafrans insist their right to self-determination is inviolable.

Is there Genocide?
One of the most troubling aspects of the conflict has been the Biafran charge that, the Nigerian government intends to commit genocide on the Ibo people. The Federal government has refused to

- 22 -

discuss peace and, until recently, to permit any relief supplies to be flown into Biafra, unless and until Biafran leaders renounce their proclamation of secession. Biafrans have refused this demand because they believe they can gain their aims through conventional or guerrilla warfare, and also because they are convinced that Nigerian military commanders intend to perpetuate genocide against me Ibos people.
Proponents of Biafra for the most part acknowledge that it is not the official policy of the Nigerian government to commit genocide. They do assert, however, that some local Nigerian commanders intend and, indeed, have tried to wipe out as many Ibos as possible, and that some Northern Muslim commanders regard the war as a holy Jihad against the Ibo people.
The factual evidence for genocide is widely divergent. Mr. Andrew Brevin and Mr. David MacDonald, two members of the Canadian Parliament, recently returned from Biafra, have reported that genocide is in fact taking place, One of them stated that “anybody who says there is no evidence of genocide is either in the pay of Britain or being a deliberate fool.” (American Committee on Africa, 164 Madison Avenue, Relief Memo #4, Nov. 1, 1968). Lloyd Garrison has written:

“, The record shows that in Federal advances… thousands of Ibo male civilians were sought out and slaughtered…” ( N, Y, Times Magazine, Sept, 8, 1968, p, 92),
An international military:: observer group, on the other hand, has reported that there was no evidence of an intent on the part of Nigerian troops to wipe out the Ibo people, (New York Times, Oct. 23)

- 23 -

Those who deny the charge of genocide point to the 30,000 Ibos still in Lagos, and the half million still in the Mid-West, with some, though not many—still holding senior posts in the Federal Government. Some British officials claim they have seen abandoned property committees and reconstruction and rehabilitation committees in many states, and that these committees are administering Ibo houses and shops that were abandoned in the hopes that the Ibos will return. Though admitting cases of indiscriminate killing, these sources allege that charges of genocide are grossly distorted.
The charges of Jihad have also been denied by British officials who assert that more than half the members of the Federal Government are Christian, while only 1,000 of the 60-70,000 Federal soliders are Muslim Hausas from the North. (House of Commons Debate, cited earlier, p. 12).
It is crucial to note, in this regard, that certain kinds of “legitimate” military strategy, though not to be equated with genocide intentionally perpetrated by a government on a particular people, can result in the extermination of large numbers of a particular group. Some Nigerian commanders, notably Colonel Benjamin Atakunle, maintain that the denial of food to Biafran-held areas and to Ibo people in Federally-controlled areas, is a legitimate and necessary strategy. As Colonel Atakunle himself told a Dutch newspaper: “I want to see no Red Cross, no Caritas, no World Council of Churches, no Pope, no missionary, and no UN delegation. I want to prevent even one Ibo having even one piece to eat before their

- 24 -

capitulation.” (London Economist, Aug. 24, 1968 as cited in the Village Voice Oct. 17, 1968.).On another occasion he suggested that emergency relief efforts were “misguided humanitarian rubbish,” arid further declared:
“If the children must die first, then that is too bad, just too bad.”
(San_Francisco_Chronicle, July 2) as cited in Village Voice Oct. 17, 1968 . That there has or will be deliberate genocide in the sense of the Federal government attempting to wipe out the Ibo people, is debatable. That there have been large-sclae pogroms and indiscriminate killings is irrefutable and widely acknowledged even by Nigerian spokesmen.


The Positions of the Major Powers
At the outset of the war in Nigeria-Biafra, the major Powers initially remained neutral, perhaps attempting to assess the relative strengths of the two sides. After a few weeks, however, Great Britain and the Soviet Union both moved to support the Federal government. Various motives have been ascribed to these moves.
A. Great Britain
Though formally prohibiting arms shipments to either belligerent at the start of the war, Great Britain soon agreed to grant export licenses for the sale of various types of weapons to Nigeria. Mr. George Thomson, Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, suggested in Parliament on August 27, 1968 , that Great Britain could not have remained neutral when a Commonwealth country whose army was built by Britain was faced with a major internal revolt. To do so would have amounted to tacit support of the secession. Moreover, to cut off arms once they were supplied would

- 25 -

only encourage Colonel Ojukwu to fight and thus prolong the conflict. An arms embargo would not help, argued Thomson, because much of the international traffic in weapons was in the hands of private dealers.
In contrast to this official British explanation, some observers including Lloyd Garrison of the New York Times have suggested that Britain moved when it saw that Biafra, contrary to initial expectations, was able to withstand the Federal forces, and that therefore, Britain’s oil interests in the Eastern Region were in danger. Others have argued that British support of the Federal Government reflects a long standing bias in favor of Northern Nigeria.
B. Soviet Union
Soviet support for the Federal Government, in the form of MIG’s and technicians, probably reflects an attempt to gain influence in an area which Russia formerly regarded as an exclusive province of the West. The Soviet Union had little contact with the pre-1966 Nigeria because it considered the Northern-dominated regime to be unpopular with the masses, politically and economically reactionary, and generally subservient to British interests. Relations became more cordial after the Ironsi take-over, and a number of agreements were negotiated on air services, student exchanges, and cultural affairs. After initial reservations about the reemergence of “reactionary” Northerners after the July countercoup, the Soviet Union eventually expressed support for Gowon’s attempts to unify the country.
Though non-committal at the outset of the war, the Soviets were
encouraged to move in, according to one analyst, by American and British neutrality and by non-recognition of Biafra by most African states.8 ____________

8. Arthur Jay Klinghoffer. “Why the Soviets Chose Sides,” Africa Report February l968, p. 4

- 26 -


In addition to supplanting some Western influence, the Soviets hoped to gain recognition in Africa as a champion of legitimate governments against secessionist rebels.

C. The United States
The United States has maintained official neutrality, but in practice has tacitly supported the Federal Government. Though contributing a reported 17 million to the relief efforts of various private organizations, President Johnson announced in July that the U.S. had no intention of interfering in Nigeria’s “internal affairs.” In practice, this has meant that the U.S. is not willing to support an airlift organized by private organizations that are not recognized for this purpose by the Nigerian government.
On November 14 the United States offered to contribute $500,000 to American volunteer relief agencies to help charter a Hercules C-130 transport to fly relief supplies into Biafra, The offer was made contingent upon the willingness of three American religious groups engaged in relief work to accept Red Cross control over the operation, The condition apparently is predicated upon the fact that the Red Cross is the only relief organization acceptable both to the Federal government and to Biafran authorities. The $500,000 is to be used as part of an estimated $1.2 million to be raised from all sources to operate a Hercules transport from the Portugese island of Sao Tome in and out of Biafra for a period of about 5 to 6 weeks Officials estimate that the use of the larger aircraft could increase current deliveries by at least 50% daily. Observers note that part-time leasing of a Hercules allows only a very modest assistance and there has been considerable

- 27 -

private effort to persuade the United States government to make available a C-130 transport for relief airlift for the duration of the present crisis, However, the airlift into Biafra has been subject to field attack and, among other things, American officials are unwilling to risk embroiling official American personnel or equipment in a possible military encounter,
Moreover, on December 5 the U.S. government publicly censured Biafra for refusing to permit relief day flights of food and medicinal supplies under the auspices of the International Red Cross Committee. The State Department spokesmen described as “incomprehensible” the refusal of Biafran authorities to allow such flights into Uli, the major Biafran airstrip, notwithstanding the likelihood that this additional means of delivery might as much as doubt current supplies. The Federal government at Lagos reportedly agreed not to intercept these deliveries. And the U.S. has sharply criticized Biafra for not similarly accepting these arrangements. Biafran authorities are dissatisfied with the Red Cross which they claim is both sluggish and overly responsive to the Federal government’s demands.
The State Department further castigated Biafra for not accepting proposals for operating land corridors to accelerate relief operations. Biafran authorities claim that this suggestion which has been endorsed by the Federal government, is intended to prevent guerrilla activities which necessarily rely: upon the destruction of the bridges, the interdiction of roads and the denial of other means of transit between the two zones. They charge that the motive of this proposal is military rather than humanitarian and is designed to impede Biafran resistance rather than to prevent Biafran starvation.

- 28 -

However, on December 14, a New

God Save Biafra.
This is a propaganda wrapped with lies.
Can dangote sacrifice his empire to defend the north?NO.Can adenuga sacrifice his sweat for the west?NEVER.Has Ojukwe done that?YES
I can now see our really enemies, Yoruba.
Lord protect us 4rm d wicked and save that which is thine.
Nigerian is embroidered into identity crisis,and am proud of my identity as a Biafran.
Aluko or Oluku shld have said that whn d legend is alife.
Adieu my legend,General of the People's Army,The Lion of Biafra,Ikemba Nnewi and THE GREATEST IGBOMAN WHO EVA LIVED, General Odumegwu Ojukwu

read what Effiong had to say about Ojuku

When Biafra's military resistance collapsed, [size=28pt]Ojukwu fled to Côte d'Ivoire[/size].

Efiong assumed leadership in this situation of turmoil, starvation, and collapse. He became Head of State of Biafra on 8 January 1970 and on 12 January announced surrender.[1]

At the time of the surrender, Efiong believed that the situation was hopeless and that prolonging the conflict would have led only to the further destruction and starvation of the people of Biafra. At that time Effiong said, "I am convinced now that a stop must be put to the bloodshed which is going on as a result of the war. I am also convinced that the suffering of our people must be brought to an immediate end."[1]

Nnaemeka L. Aneke wrote, "General Efiong’s handling of Biafra’s surrender is one of the most tactical and devoted maneuvers ever seen on the Nigerian scene. Those who do not appreciate the depth of it may not have appreciated what was at stake as Biafra capitulated."[2] Many observers had expected wholesale retribution at war's end.
[edit]

Later life


In a 1996 interview, Efiong reflected on those events:

I have no regrets whatsoever of my involvement in Biafra or the role I played. The war deprived me of my property, dignity, my name. Yet, I saved so many souls on both sides and by this, I mean Biafra and Nigeria. . . .

I felt that I played a role which has kept this country united till today. . . .

At the end of it all when I saw they (Biafran soldiers) could no longer continue and [size=28pt]Ojukwu had fled[/size], I did what was ideal after wide consultation . . . [2]

Efiong died 6 November 2003, at the age of 78 less than two weeks before his 79th birthday.

The b1nch fled the war front and left the populace to die

What a shame to war generals.

God bless Effiong a true general who waited not the biatch who fled

@lagcity

Yoruba and Igbo will always be enemies. No Igbo should trust Yoruba and vice versa. We are enemies and don't owe each other anything, get used to it!

@ferderick

I can now see our really enemies, Yoruba.
Lord protect us 4rm d wicked and save that which is thine.

It is only myopic Igbos (like you?) that would never be friendly with Yorubas, even as l am typing these, l will be celebrating the New Year with nothing less than ten Igbo families, who are close friends! We also have Hausa friends who don’t give a hoot about Boko Haram, Religion or where you come from; ofcourse, they are all enlightened and well educated!!

@Daytona500

I think it is time to be sincere to yourselves and list all the negative attributes affecting you as a people,may be you can reason together as one and stop the blame game. Your future is more important than your past. Please swallow your pride and reason.

I hope you can make sense out of Daytona500’s post up there? Yorubas, like Hausas and Igbos, all have their own “strengths and weakness”, what we seek is a situation where we can all leverage on our different strengths while de-emphasizing our weaknesses!

You say the Huasa/Fulani from up North are your enemies, they kill your people at random!
You then again say the Yorubas down South and West will always be your enemies, they cant be trusted!
Who then are your FRIENDS in this contraption called Nigeria?
ANYONE that considers EVERYONE their ENEMY certainly has a Personality Disorder problem.

If Hausas up North are that bad, how come the Igbos keep trooping back there after one and every massacre? How come you don’t stay in your enclave instead of going to Kano, Maiduguri, Kafanchan, Katsina, Sokoto, e.t.c or are those places also part of the Federal capital?

If the Yorubas down South are your worst enemies and you cant trust them, how come you will find an Igbo man doing “thriving Business and living happily” in the remotest part of Yoruba land? Be it Ibadan, Akure, Badagry, Ogbomosho, Ile-Ife, all over the Ijebu areas, e.t.c? Or are those parts also part of the former Federal capital of Lagos?

Why not stay put in Onitsha, Aba, Enugu, e.t.c which are also well developed and cosmopolitan?
You cannot be dinning and living within a ‘nation of people’ and keep insulting them like this!
It portrays you as “an ungrateful, back-biting bunch that bites the finger that feeds him” (literally speaking) and just in case “shyte-happenz” again, how do you expect the same people to come to your aid and defend you?
Even the Hausas who also enjoy the Hospitality (docility) of Yorubas, don’t come out to openly insult them like this!

The Yorubas l think are the most accommodating bunch of people in Nigeria today. They welcome and share everything with “others” and they are not religious fanatics. All they want is to ‘educate, make money and party’. Simple life!

Having said the above, l will consign your comments to a small percentage of Igbos (the noisy minority) and want to believe that most Igbos are not your type. I have them as friends and l trust them 100%. We do business together and the feeling is mutual;
I take each person at FACE-VALUE.

Though, we cannot discount “individual attributes” that make Mr. A a good person and Mr. B a bad person, even though they both come from the same mother and father, how much less coming from the same tribe!

Lets stop this useless “over-generalising and stereotyping of a whole nation of people”; its not intelligent, its not smart and it is silly.

I believe our grand fathers may have made mistakes and this we could only say with the power of hind-sight. The decisions that some of them took, were taken in the best interest of their nation or people or tribe, it might not be the best for the country as a whole but we must understand the level of mistrust that was prevalent in those times.
Then, there was limited means of communications; No GSM or adequate Telephone coverage, No internet or blogging on the web, No texting or video-phone and many more applications that make trust much more easy to establish, as we have today. Trust could be a lot harder to establish back then.
MUST WE THEN CONTINUE TO DWELL IN THE MISTAKES OF THE PAST AND REEK UP MORE BAD BLOOD, FOR THE NEXT GENERATION?

Let us forgive our old generations and let us evaluate our current relationships “AS IT IS”, as it appears on the table; NOT as Awolowo or Zik or Ojukwu or Aluko or Sarduana told us!

As for Prof Aluko, what he wrote is his “personal opinion” though l do not envy that part where he said he gave Ojukwu’s number to Gowon but then, l cant say for sure if it was not with Ojukwu’s consent or whether it was done to facilitate a “meeting of minds and for peace to be negotiated”.
Either way, it does not change the fact that “its history and story about one man, from another man”.

Cheers
.
Lastpage


Excerpt from a post above

In the South, and particularly in the Yoruba areas, the British were able to establish themselves more firmly and Christian missionaries rapidly introduced Western forms of education. Consequently, the Yoruba were the first group in Nigeria to become significantly modernized and they provided the first African civil servants, doctors, lawyers, and other technicians and professionals.
- 5 –

In Ibo areas, missionaries were introduced at a later date because of British difficulty in establishing firm control over the highly autonomous Ibo villages. (Audrey Chapman, “Civil War in Nigeria,” Midstream, Feb 1968). However, the Ibo people, highly individualistic and achievement-oriented, took to Western education zealously. By the 1940’s they had transformed themselves into one of the most educated, wealthiest, and politically unified groups in Nigeria and presented a serious challenge to Yoruba predominance in the civil service and the professions. Moreover, severe population pressure in the Ibo homeland combined with an intense desire for economic improvement, drove thousands of Ibos to other parts of Nigeria in search of work. Many went to the Northern areas where their entrepreneurial and technical skills were in particular demand among the traditional and generally uneducated population. There they took up positions as merchants, government civil servants, and clerks in private European companies. In time the Ibos came to occupy in Nigeria a position somewhat analogous to that of the Indians in East Africa or the Jews in Eastern Europe. In the North and to a lesser extent in the West they came to be looked upon as alien outsiders occupying positions in the economy that “rightfully” belonged to tile indigenous inhabitants of the area. They were perceived as aggressive and pushy, and were envied and resented because of the rapidity with which they acquired education and wealth.

Notice that “perception” please!

unite 9jas,





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKgRYDuO4sA&sns=fb

The coward called aluko was stealing info fro earsterner and ojukwu and selling it to awolowo and gowon for political office.
Never trust a yoruba man.

A very important thread. The level of treachery of the average Yoruba man.

Marcelini:
A very important thread. The level of treachery of the average Yoruba man.

Very true.

Marcelini:
A very important thread. The level of treachery of the average Yoruba man.

It's obvious you read the article upside down.