₦airaland Forum

errors are natural.

Releasing the ''FOREWORD'' for the upcoming book: AFRICA UN-SLAVED; VOLUME I : THE CHAINS OF MODERN-DAY AFRICAN SLAVERY AND THE STEPS TO OUR LIBERATION

Foreword

Imagine lying in a deeply comatose state while surrounded by a burning fire. The blaze continually disseminates yet you remain in such a deeply dismal slumber the ensuing harm goes unrecognized. Then out of the flames rings an alarm, one...
reverberating through the chaos, awakening you to the contiguous danger. ''Africa un-slaved; Volume I: The Chains of Modern-day African Slavery and The Steps to Our Liberation'' is exactly that, a lurid alarm shaking, moving, and impelling the reader to recognize the impeding danger and escape before it consumes them.

In ''Africa un-slaved; Volume I”, author Teekay Akin [Akinyemi Adeseye] poignantly illustrates the pervasive cause for the disenfranchisement and oppression of Africans throughout the world. At the foundation of African oppression is the ubiquitous mental colonization that permeates each generation cloaked in the illusion of the “possibility” of prosperity. Much of what is expressed in this work is the illusive and deleterious function of religion, specifically that of foreign religion.

Resonating throughout ''Africa un-slaved” is the admonishment of Africans to a rise from their mental and physical dependency on that which has and continues to oppress the masses. The author calls for the dismantling of religious idealism that only seeks to further subdue under the guise of false hope.

''Africa un-slaved” begs the question “Why can't we break free from this mentality that has got us down this destructive road?” In answering this question the author shatters these imagined precepts of false hope through political and religious faith and repositions this hope only through revolutionary acts of reason and realism. As Akin proclaims, “We have taken all those chains of our slavery and burdens and tied them firmly around our own necks.” Therefore the realism of true freedom can only be actualized through removing the mental shackles and creating an insurrection against the proverbially corrupt slave masters in both political and religious arenas.

This work leaves the reader in a constant position of questioning their state of oppression and their role in sustaining it for themselves and others. It addresses how the continual acceptance of corruption, religious idealism, and foreign standards lead to generational propagation of African mental colonization. ''Africa un-slaved; Volume I: The Chains of Modern-day African Slavery and The Steps to Our Liberation'' blatantly presents the tools that have been utilized to redefine and further propel a nuanced form of slavery. The author depicts how these tools; both overtly and covertly are not only embraced but also passed down by those who they are intended to confound.

In all that is written by the author it is evident the passion he has for the liberation of oppressed Africans both on the continent and in the diaspora. It is through this passion, honest analysis, and concise presentation that Akin exhorts us. Throughout this volume, the readers will find themselves hearing the mental alarm recoiling through each section, waking them from the slumber of subjugation and the shackles of mental slavery.

Therefore, to all who seek liberation, within these writings you shall find a glimmer of light to guide you along your journey. In Freedom,

Zakiya N. Muwwakkil, Ph.D.
The Mental Slavery Abolitionist

Home » Commentary » Articles
Commentary
The War Against Biafra By Abdulrazaq O Hamzat
Posted: November 29, 2012 - 14:30
By Abdulrazaq O Hamzat

One Sunday morning, precisely on the 25th of November 2012. I woke up around 10am in the morning and picked up my mobile phone to check the messages from my Facebook friends.

Upon opening my page to get a snippet, the first message that popped up was a link to an article published by saharareporters and shared by a friend, written by Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie titled, Chinua Achebe at 82:We remember differently.

No doubt,Ngozie is one of the most promising African/Nigerian writer doing us proud across the world, and her opinion about our civil war(THE WAR AGAINST BIAFRA (1967-1970)) is indeed worth reading.Since the issue in discourse was an historic event which occurred in our dear beautiful Nigeria many years ago,and that which has attracted and became a National Debate. I believe the vox-pop cannot be described as a snag, but rather as snafu.

As I read through the somnolent, articulated and easy to read write-up not snarl, I was left with numerous questions begging for answers not provided in the article.Though, I would agree that nothing new was said in it, except the fact that Ngozie repeated what other Igbo’s had previously said. The only difference in the article wast hat, Adichie used her own words to narrate what she heard or read, either from an uncle or other Igbo people. The only reference she made about the other party to the conflict was Awolowo (the then Nigeria finance minister).

Then, I remembered what Chief Obafemi Awolowo said, that: As far as I know, the Igbo masses are friendly to me, towards me. In fact, whenever I visit Igbo land, either Anambra or Imo and there is no campaigning for elections on, the Igbo people receive me warmly and affectionately. But there are some elements in Igbo land who believe that they can maintain their popularity only by denigrating me and so, they keep on telling lies against me. - Chief Obafemi Awolowo(PUNCH October 8, 2012)

Let me assume that Ngozie, just like Achebe,was right to use the words of Awolowo alone to justify her account of the civil, but how come Adichie only consented to one side of the Awolowo’s story and that which she uses to justify her sentiments? That to me is rat bag and shows a sign of raspy.

I do not wish that this article be regarded as a reply to Adichie’s article, but instead, as my contribution to the national debate of the Nigerian Civil war experience.

I love Igbo, I love Ngozie, I respect her opinion, but dislike her one sided account of the war. Just as I love Achebe, respect his pedigree, love his narration, but dislike his sentiments.

History is not like a story or movie that has a beginning and ending, it is a life that was lived behind, that which is being lived at present and something that would be lived in the future. The history of war is even more delicate to tell, it is a history of pain, the account of destruction, narration of hardship and telling the story of sorrow, which is why it is even more delicate. The event of history, especially the account of war, cannot be narrated with emotions, attachments or feelings, if it’s done, it may raise the dead souls, reverse the time and repeat itself.

In the words of Ngozie, ‘’we can argue about how we interpret the facts of our shared history, but we cannot, surely, argue about the facts themselves.-Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie

So my question is, what are the facts themselves?

The facts are distinctively clear and visible; there was a conflict which leads to a war (THE WAR AGAINST BIAFRA).

Different scholars have defined conflict in many ways. It has been defined as the existence of non-compatibility or disagreements between two or more actors (Individuals, groups, organizations or nations) in their interaction over the issues of interests, value, beliefs, emotions, goals, space, positions and scarce resources etc.-(Noun PCR 106). Finks in his work defined conflict as any’’situation or process in which two or more social entities are linked by at least one form of antagonistic psychological relation or at least one form of antagonistic interaction. The psychological antagonisms are such things as incompatible goals, mutually exclusive interests, emotional hostility, factual or value dissensions and traditional enmities, while antagonistic interactions ‘range from the most direct, violent and unregulated struggle to the most subtle indirect and highly regulated forms of mutual interference’’. Another most important definition given by Lewi Coser which can be used to explain the event which leads to THE WAR AGAINST BIAFRA is that, Conflict is a struggle over values and claims to secure status, power and resources.A struggle in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralize, injure or eliminate the rivals.

Going by the events prior to the civil war (the first coup), it was indeed a struggle over value and claims to secure status, power and resources. A struggle in which the aim of the coup plotters are to neutralize, injure and eliminate the rivals and they did do so. The counter coup also took the same shape, a struggle over value and claims to reclaim status, power and resources. A struggle in which the aim of the counter coup plotters were to neutralize, injure and eliminate the rivals which they also deed.

Some identifiable causes of conflict, which we can describe as the cause of the Nigerian Civil War include: Communication failure, Value difference, and methodological differences, lack of cooperation and understanding, personality conflict and goal differences. Even if all the above is missing, it still could not lead to conflict that may leads to war if there is substandard performance and compliance to rules as lay down, but the none compliance to rule is the key factor. Had General Aguiyi Ironsi allowed the trail of the first coup plotters based on the military rule without trying to shield them by providing cover, the counter coup would have been averted.

The above is the exact situation of the first coup in Nigeria and the reaction which brought about THE WAR AGAINST BIAFRA

· In 1960, Nigeria started good under a democratic government, acivilian; Mr Nnamdi Azikwe (Igbo) was President of Nigeria in a government with Tafawa Balewa (Hausa) as Prime Minister.
· In January 1966 as MOSTLY agreed, An Igbo man staged the first ever coup,which I cannot refer to as tantrum in Nigeria,but forcefully ousting a democratically elected Government, and the coup was led by 5 Igbo Officers who murdered mostly important Northern leaders including Tafawa Balewa, the Prime Minister and non-Igbo leaders, but exempted the Igbo administrators including Nnamdi Azikwe, The president. Many have been asking the question “how convenient” Azikwe was vacationing in the Caribbean and spared along with other Igbo administrators?
· In July 1966,are we surprised at the revenge coup of July 1966 led by Hausa Fulani with the accompanying pogrom in the North It was asked?

As a Yoruba proverb have it, ‘’ Oro akoko dani,ko le dabitiadaigbeyin’’ meaning, the first assault may be less severe than the last.

· After the stage for coup plotting was activated by the Igbo’s, I can’t argue if it was patriotic or not, but I believe it was, yet, the fact remains that, the coup plotting was activated and the perceived injustice and selective murdering of mostly Northern leaders was fresh in the northerners memory. The Hausa Fulani then walked on that path of coup, to retaliate the killing of their important personalities by also murdering mostly Igbo officers in the coup against Col. Aguinyi Ironsi in July 1966.But in my opinion based on evidence, the massacre was too waspish and they went too far, inhuman and unreasonably warp with the pogroms in the North, killing innocent Igbo’s which is regrettable and condemnable,considering the fact that innocent Igbo’s massacred in the north were never part of any power struggle and it beset, making it knotty.

· Odumeju Emeka Ojukwu, having observed that the event is saturnine and raucous,secedes with Biafra. Though, the secession seems vacuity as someone described it, like the school boy if I cannot play at my own rules, then I will take my ball away.

Point of note: The Igbo’s were said to be the first, in the history of Nigeria to initiate,lead,plot a coup and topple a democratically elected government, killing mostly northern leaders. The Northern region, despite the leery feeling of being unjustly violated in Nigeria didn’t threaten to secede, though, they became ratty and instead fight back as people who perceived themselves as having equal rights and stake in the country. But the Igbo’s, who were said to have begun the coup plotting and murdering of the important personalities in the north and other part of the country when faced with similar faith and challenges, instead of standing on their feet in the country and claim their rightful position, threatened to secede blaming the northerners for injustice as they perceived.

· In the efforts to prevent secession and possible war, Aburi Accord was entered and failure to abide to the agreement by the Nigerian government eventually leads to the war. I wished the Nigerian Government had abides to the agreement.
· 1967 -70, a horrible civil war. The bulk of Igbos who left for the East mostly withdrew all their money from the Nigerian banks.

Adichie had argued that, the Biafra succession was inevitable after the failure of the Nigerian government to implement the Aburi accord which was right, but if the Igbo lead coup, which produced Col. Ironsi didn’t occur or will I say, a one sided coup, which Adichie described as an idealistic poorly planned national exercise aimed at ridding Nigeria of a corrupt government, there won’t be any retaliation from the northern forces which brought rapture,and If there was no rapture which leads to retaliation from the northern forces, there won’t be call for secession or the Aburi Accord which may put the Nigerian Government in the implementing or none implementing position– These are the facts

Adichie began her article, by narrating her encounter with professor Chinua Achebe and her love for the respected writer, his commendation of her work and so on, before she finally begin to write about his controversial memoir titled: THERE WAS A COUNTRY.
In her words ‘’ I wish THERE WAS A COUNTRY had been better edited and more rigorously detailed in its account of the war. ‘’ Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie

Why would Adichie want a Professor, one of the best-selling African author of all time and a respected scholar of close to or more than 60 years in practice to better edit his long awaited writing that was finally published?

The simple meaning I deduced from that statement was an acceptance of negative account of the narration of THE WAR AGAINST BIAFRA based on insufficient logic and evidences.

It was a surprise when Chimamanda later said:
‘’But these flaws do not make it any less seminal: an account of the most important event in Nigeria’s history by Nigeria’s most important storyteller.’’ ’ Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie

Rewriting the above statement from my understanding, it says, but these errors or mistake that is not correct in Professor Achebe’s book, or these faults in Professor Achebe’s writing do not make it any less important.

To Ngozie and other Igbo people, who may see themselves as victims without considering the victims from the other party, it may not be less seminal, but to others, who feel it was a one sided sentimental account of the reality of war, it is indeed less seminal.
Also, In supporting what Adichie earlier regarded as flaws, she said, Awolowo, as de facto ‘number two man’ on the Nigerian side, was a central architect of the blockade on Biafra. During and after the war, Awolowo publicly defended the blockade. Without the blockade, the massive starvation in Biafra would not have occurred. These are the facts Adichie said.

What she stated above was not new, it has always been the case from various Igbo narrators, but my question is, why will Awolowo adopt blockade as an act of war?.
Let me quote Awolowo himself to answer the question, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, when he narrated what he saw when he went to the war torn area said: I saw the kwashiorkor victims.

If you see a kwashiorkor victim, you’ll never like war to be waged. Terrible sight in Enugu and Port Harcourt. Then I enquired what happened to the food we were sending to the civilians. We were sending food through The Red Cross and Caritas to the civilians in Biafra, but what happen was that, the vehicle carrying the food would then be taken to the soldiers to feed them and so they were able to continue to fight. And I said that was a very dangerous policy; we didn’t intend the food for the soldiers, but who will go behind the line to stop the soldiers from ambushing the vehicles that were carrying the food? And as long as soldiers were feed, the war will continue and who’ll continue to suffer? (The Civilian masses that were already suffering and having kwashiorkor I suppose). And those who didn’t go to the place to see things as I did, you remember that all the big guns, all the soldiers in the Biafran army looked all well fed after the war, it’s only the masses of the people that suffered kwashiorkor. You won’t hear of a single lawyer, single doctor or single architect who suffered from kwashiorkor, none of their children either, so, they waylaid the foods, they ambush the vehicles taking foods to the civilians and took the food to their friends and their collaborators and their children and the masses were suffering. So I decided to stop sending the food there. In the process, the civilians would suffer, but the soldiers will suffer most and the war would end quickly.-Chief Obafemi Awolowo.(PUNCH October 8, 2012)
In my opinion, if the soldiers were not initially hijacking the food items directed to the civilian masses, there won’t be any blockade.The policy of blockade was a direct response to the action of the Biafran soldiers.-Fact

Adechie also stated that,’’ The blockade was, in her opinion, inhumane and immoral. And it was unnecessary – Nigeria would have won anyway.’’- Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
I agree with Ngozie that blockade as an act of war is inhumane and immoral, but in the case of THE WAR AGAINST BIAFRA as we have read from Awolowo who went to the war torn places as he said, I beg to disagree.

Blockade as an act of war, can be termed as inhuman and immoral, if it is done with the intent of inflicting pains and damage on the population of the opponent, but that cannot be said for THE WAR AGAINST BIAFRA. The policy of blockade in THE WAR AGAINST BIAFRA in my opinion was adopted out of necessity, to prevent the continuation of war and needless destruction of more lives and properties.It could be referred to as a doctrine of necessity.

She also stated that, the blockade was unnecessary and that Nigeria would have won the war anyway.But I ask, how would Nigeria have won the war without more death and more destruction? Recall that,the war had already lasted for more than 2 years at that time, and it was said that during the war, Ojukwu was recruiting under aged soldiers and taking them to the war front.With constant food supply and other materials, the war would have lasted longer and in the process, more lives and destruction would be recorded.

Ngozie also stated that, The policy of starving a civilian population into surrender does not merely go against the Geneva conventions, but in this case, a war between siblings, people who were formerly fellow country men and women now suddenly on opposite sides, it seems more chilling. All is not fair in war.

As already stated, the civilian population of Biafra were not starved to surrender, as there were evidences, that the Nigerian Government offered to supply food to the civilian population, an offer which was rejected by the Biafran Administrators. It was clear with these facts, that the case of starving the civilian population cannot arise, since offer was given and rejected by the Biafrans.

THE WAR AGAINST BIAFRA, just like every other war is a matter of life and death to the soldiers, the Nigerian forces were killed, so is the Biafran forces, and at that stage, it is not a matter of siblings as the war had raptured it. The reluctance of the Nigerian forces to crush the Biafrans forces even if it means crushing the innocent civilians was in my opinion, as a result of African brotherhood/humanity and hope that the Biafrans shall eventually reunite with Nigeria. Both forces were struggling to hold onto their position which can only be done by overcoming the other.

According to a friend’s opinion on the said subject, he said and I quote,’’ I believe in Nigeria, I love the Igbo people and I want us all to understand that WARS have deer consequences. However, a war is exactly what it is; a war. It’s one of the most horrific, dehumanizing, destabilizing and unforgettable experiences a country or people can pass through.
My point is that, anyone who makes that final decision to go to war must be ready for the consequences, for the horror, for the injustice, for the loss and for the possibility of defeat and then decide if it is worth going ahead with or not. If it is worth losing everything for or not. If you decide to go ahead in war, then don’t blame Awolowo or anyone for whatever consequences are encountered. If it wasn’t Awolowo, it would have been someone else. War is never pretty. That is why it is always the last option.‘’

Though, I acknowledge the valour of Odumeju Ojukwu, the Ikemba of Nnewi at such a crucial time, when issues became knotty and his tribal people are timorous, he made a stand on behave of the people, though, it was later argued to be vacuous. But the Ikemba, Emeka Odumeju Ojukwu was indeed, a courageous and patriotic soldier, who spoke on behave of the Igbo’s when there were no other voices, he stand when others are laying and hegave hope when all seems lost.

In my opinion, As much as the Nigerian Government was to be blamed for the starvation, the majority of the blames should actually be directed to the Biafran administrators who rejected to feed their citizens, when it was obvious that they have no other means and are lethargy. If the war was fought to the extent of choosing between the continuation of war and feeding your citizens, a thoughtful and compassionate leader, who cares for the people’s welfare would rather accept defeat and feed his people, than hold on to fighting at the detriment of the people’s welfare.

If the Biafran administrators, who primarily derived its power from the Biafran citizens, could not concede to feed its people, I do not think it is right to blame the Nigerian Government who see its offer to feed the Biafran people rejected.

I later understood where Adichie was coming from when she said, ‘’I grew up hearing, from adults, versions of Achebe’s words about Awolowo. He was the man who prevented an Igbo man from leading the Western House of Assembly in the famous ‘carpet crossing’ incident of 1952. He was the man who betrayed Igbo people when he failed on his alleged promise to follow Biafra’s lead and pull the Western region out of Nigeria. He was the man who, in the words of my uncle, “made Igbo people poor because he never liked us.” Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie

The above submission is one of the challenges, that the young Nigerians of this generation would have to overcome by heterodox, but heuristic.

How truthful or meaningful are these claims and accusations against Chief Obafemi Awolowo which had sowed the seed of discord and poisoned the mind of the Igbo people about him? And how can we verify the authenticity of the claims? A proper analysis of the above accusations may reveal some answers.

That Awolowo prevented an Igboman from leading the western House of Assembly in 1952 was in my opinion,strictly a political affair.

Pitching his tent with the Igbo man, at that time,May not give Awolowo is political dream I suppose. As a visionary man that he Awolowo was, how do we expect him to ignore his own dream and give in to the dream of others in a political contest, when there is a better option for him? Who among the Igbo’s, accusing Awolowo has ever done that?

A perfect example is according to an opinion that says, Nnamdi Azikwe could have held the powerful position of the Prime Minister nor ceremonial President if he had allied with Chief Obafemi Awolowo as his Finance Minister, but Azikwe chooses otherwise. He instead allied with Tafawa Balewa, where both of them occupied the position of the President and the Prime Minister respectively.That in my opinion was simple politics, not hatred or betrayal. No sincere Igbo man would tag Awolowo a hater of Igbo’s based on his political choice in a contest, except that they are not aware of the situation. Why was Azikwe not tagged a hater of the Yoruba’s for not pitching his tent with the Awolowo’s group, which denied the Yoruba’s a chance of holding either the post of the Prime Minister or the President in the first and second republic?(1960-1966).The accusation against Awolowo to me is a fallacy.

The same example can be used for the other accusations and if properly looked at, we would realize that they were not genuine. There are several other examples of others, who did similar things with Awo without being called names. When other leaders do the same thing as Awolowo, they were not regarded as haters or betrayers, but when Awolowo does the same as others, he gets different treatment which makes me wonder, if what Awolowo said was the truth, that, As far as I know, the Igbo masses are friendly to me, towards me. In fact, whenever I visit Igbo land, either Anambra or Imo and there is no campaigning for elections on, the Igbo people receive me warmly and affectionately. But there are some elements in Igbo land who believe that they can maintain their popularity only by denigrating me and so, they keep on telling lies against me. - Chief Obafemi Awolowo(PUNCH October 8, 2012)

Adichie also stated that ’’At the end of the war, every Igbo person who had a bank account in Nigeria was given twenty pounds, no matter how much they had in their accounts before the war. I have always thought this a livid injustice. I know a man who worked in a multinational company in 1965. He was, like Achebe, one of the many Igbo who just could not believe that their lives were in danger in Lagos and so he fled in a hurry, at the last minute, leaving thousands of pounds in his account. After the war, his account had twenty pounds. To many Igbo, this policy was uncommonly punitive, and went against the idea of ‘no victor, no vanquished.’’.Chimamada Ngozie Adichie

Awolowo before his death actually answered all the relevant questions regarding THE WAR AGAINST BIAFRA, inhis response to the above accusation, Chief Obafemi Awolowo said: We didn’t know about the Biafran note and we didn’t know on what basis they have printed them, so we refused the Biafran notes, but I laid down the principle that all those who had savings in the banks on the eve of the declaration of Biafra, will get their money back if they could satisfy us that they had the savings there, or the money there. Unfortunately, all the bank books had been burnt or discarded and many of the people didn’t had their savings book or their last statement of account, so a panel had to be set up. -Obafemi Awolowo (PUNCH October 8, 2012)

It was the agreement of the panel, setup by Awothat resolved to give every Igbo person with an account 20 pounds, even without any evidence of funds in their account. It was gathered that, most of the Igbo’s, withdrew their funds in the banks at the brink of the war and converted it to the Biafran currency. They discarded everything of Nigeria including their cheaque or cashbooks. And after the war, even if anyone had thousand pounds in his or her account which may be very rare and unlikely,there was no means to verify its authenticity, as they have all burnt their cash books. There was no means to verify those who had money in their account and those who had withdrew theirs, no means to verify how much they had in their account, since they had discarded the only means of verifying the fact. This was a time when only paper records were used for bank transactions.

As much as I cannot dismiss the claim of the person who told Adichie about his situation after the war, I could also not and I also believed so for Adichie, that the person in question could not verify the authenticity of his claim.

Though, it is painful to be in the position of the victims, but, it is also confusing to be in the position of the decision makers. The policy of 20 pounds to all those holding an account was a way to give all. It may not be the best, but I am sure, that there would be countless of people, who had no dime in their account and yet received the 20 pounds, just as we would have others who had funds in their account and could not redeem it.

Chimamanda also talked about the pre and post-civil war events, in her words’ ‘Before the war, many of Nigeria’s positions of power were occupied by Igbo people, in the military, politics, academia, business. Perhaps because the Igbo were very receptive to Western education, often at the expense of their own traditions, and had both a striving individualism and a communal ethic. This led to what, in history books, is often called a ‘fear of Igbo domination’ in the rest of Nigeria. The Igbo themselves were insensitive to this resentment, the bombast and brashness that is part of Igbo culture only exacerbated it. And so leading Igbo families entered the war as Nigeria’s privileged elite but emerged from it penniless, stripped and bitter. Adichie said.

Though truth and painful, but such stereotype should be expected, considering the fact that the Igbo people, after the war were still singing the Biafran song.Instead of resolving to live and move Nigeria forward, they at any slightest disagreement, bring up the issue of Biafra. Even till date, Igbo’s are not helping the matter, as they always talk about the return to Biafra which gives the generality of Nigerians the believe that,if power is given to the Igbo’s, it may use such power to cause disintegration in the country, something we detest and pray never happens.

Igbo’s should forget about the existence of, or possibility of resurrecting any country called Biafra. Something Professor Chinua Achebe had referred to,in his controversial memoir title as, THERE WAS A COUNTRY. But in my opinion, there was no any country, but there was a conflict which leads to a war (THE NIGERIAN CIVIL WAR(1967-1970)), a war against disintegration, THE WAR AGAINST BIAFRA, a war to preserve our collective strength and a war to give Africa hope.There was no any country, but there was kwashiorkor (the civilian masses that were victims of starvation from the wrong actions of the Biafran administrators and the Nigerian government), there was mass death, pain, agony, regret,lesson and there was a history.
There was a painful memory of yesterday, the misdeed and counter misdeed of our then leaders, the struggling challenges of today that must be overcomed and the upcoming future of greatness that must be built.

The most important thing today is that, there is togetherness, unity and hope. There is AlhajiObinna and there is Reverend Musa. There was no any country, but there is Nigeria and THIS IS NIGERIA, our Nigeria, my Nigeria and your Nigeria.

Let the Igbo’s along with other Nigerians, concentrate on building and holding a stand in Nigeria, as well as cooperate and compete for positions its deserve.

Every tribe in Nigeria are competing and cooperating to acquire power, no tribe could do it alone except through cooperation, but the case cannot be said for the Igbo people at the moment. The Igbo’s are always scared to stand for what they truly deserve politically, they mostly go for what king SaheedOsupa refers to as (DimaIru), meaning, holding the none competitive tale instead of standing up to the competitive head which is the ultimate best.
Adichie alsodiscussed marginalization, that, ‘’Today, ‘marginalization’ is a popular word in Igboland. Many Igbo feel marginalized in Nigeria, a feeling based partly on experience and partly on the psychology of a defeated people. ‘’

But in my opinion, no tribe or region in Nigeria is not feeling marginalized. From the Hausa, Fulani’s in the north, to the Yoruba’s in the West, theIgbo’s in the East,Ijaw in the South and all others. The word,marginalization is popular in every part of Nigeria, but I agree that the Igbo’s are more marginalized due to my earlier resolved. Changing the situation cannot be achieved by feeling pity for oneself, but by standing up and truly standing for what you deserve, not by claiming to be victims seeking pity, but by standing up to the challenges and intelligently proffering a way forward for achieving the goals of interest.
I agree, that the status of Igbo’s should change politically and in term of positions of power, I have even opined that the Igbo’s should be supported to the highest position in the country, but nothing is gained on a platter of gold, the divisiveness within the Igbo tribe itself is not helping, it has never and would never help.

I can’t but agree with Ngozie that indeed, we remember differently.
While the Igbo’s remember the heartless massacre of their tribal people in the north in July 1966, the starvation of the Biafran innocent mass civilians during THE WAR AGAINST BIAFRA, the 20 pounds balance in their account, irrespective of their savings, the murder of mostly Igbo officers in the July, 1966 coup and the loss of properties and political power.

The remaining Nigerians on the other hand, remembered the death of the Nigerian Prime Minister, Sir Tafawa Balewa, who was murdered in what can be referred to as a strange coup, something that had never been experienced in Nigeria, that was suddenly introduced by Major Nzeogwu and mostly termed to be an Igbo coup due its mode of execution, led by 5 Igbo officers. Other Nigerians remember the premier of the western and northern region, Chief SamuelAkintola and Sir Ahmadu Bello and Ahmadu Bello’s wife, who were also murdered, throwing the country into shamble and of balance, and Nigerians also remember the mostly northern personalities murdered in the coup. They also remembered Nnamdi Azikwe, The Nigerian Igbo president, who was spared in the coup along with other Igbo administrators. Indeed, we remember differently.

They also remembered that, the retaliation coup was a failure of General Aguiyi Ironsi to bring the coup plotters for trial as requested by the military rule, but instead, rallied the military in their favour. What more can I say than truly, we remember differently.

In conclusion, the fault in Adichie’sarticleis her sophistry assumption,that she was and is part of the conflicting parties. Even though she later try to claim neutrality to justify her earlier stance, but it was very obvious, that she was speaking the already spoken voice, without bringing in her sincere and neutral view.
I would like to advise Ngozie,like a friend said,to study history, rather than talk sentiments over issues that are a fact. Check out the facts; look at the historical timeline and not spinned stories sold by people.

Or at least, present both parties position and intelligently analyse it to arrive at a neutral position based on two conflicting opinions.

I would repeat the words of others that said, Igbos had long been integrated into the Nigerian family, but to get to the Presidency requires collaboration with other ethnic groups, something the Igbo’s are not doing at present. This finger pointing and accusations of a single man rather than apportion blames equally to those who participated in killings on both the Fed and Biafran sides would soothe old wounds.
It is sad to see that some of the truth Chimamanda tried to show usis hidden in some of the truth she refused to share…Again, Ngozi, you have chosen the path of selective truth in your article. I just wish your article is neutral; however, it has only spoken the truth you want us to see.

Quoting the word of wisdom by a friend, however, the human race has been known to rise up from the ashes of worse tragedies, even those brought by the great forces of Mother Nature against which we are most times defenceless. So, whilst we remember Biafra as a significant part of our history and respect the memory of all the lost ones across the affected tribes, the success or failure of the Igbo’s as a tribe cannot be tied to THE WAR AGAINST BIAFRA. Truly, we all remember differently, but it is by discussing and sharing those memories sincerely that we can find a common ground that can help us move forward. Yes we have inherited painful memories; we all have our own truths.

My proposition, Since Yakubu Gowon is still alive and Achebe is also a part of the war, I would only keep silent and learn, when the two are narrating the war experience. They were both part and parcel of the war, though, Gowon had a direct involvement as the leader of Nigeria, Achebe on the other hand was a victim of the war or I would refer to him as a viewer in the war.

The experience of Gowon during the war is different from Achebe, one is part of the fighting and the other was watching the fight from a distant.

I would have preferred a live debate between Yakubu Gowon and Ojukwu or Awolowo and Ojukwu. That would have helped the young generationhave a first-hand information from two fighter’s, implementing their own policies. And another debate between a viewer from the Biafran side like Achebe and that from the Nigerian side. Though, the debate of the viewer would contain less information of the war, since they were only watching without knowing much about the internal discussion of the participants.

Even now, Yakubu Gowon and Achebe or other Igbo leaders may step forward and engage each other sincerely in an open discussion about the war, with the intention of educating the youths of this generation about the true account of the civil war, the error committed, mistakes made and lessons to be learned. These would help overcome the silent suspicion.

Finally,Let me say that,All my above submission may be wrong and incorrect, since I am only giving my opinion based on the information from others, which may not be entirely correct, but based on the available information from both sides; the above is a sincere submission devoid of any sentiment or interest.

In resolving the numerous conflicts in Nigeria, according to (Noun PCR106) conflict resolution styles uses real life, emotionally charged scenarios to demonstrate and discuss five different approaches to handling conflict:
· Accommodate (I lose, you win)-you put aside your needs and desires and give in to the other person’s demands.
· Avoid (I lose, you lose)-you avoid, postpone or prevent a conflict and neither party wins because the conflicts remain unresolved
· Compromise (we both win, we both lose)-you resolve the conflict quickly and efficiently by seeking a fair and equitable split between your respective positions.
· Compete (I win, you lose)-you seek to win your position at the expense of the other party.
· Collaborate (I WIN, YOU WIN)-you cooperate with the other party to find solution with a mutually satisfying outcome. This last one is the best to resolve any conflict.

The account from Awolowo, Ojukwu, Gowon, Achebe and others may not be entirely correct, but the truth lies within. We may not be entirely truthful at all times due to our nature as human (imperfect), but Awolowo, Ojukwu, Gowon, Ironsi, Azikwe etc have all contributed their quota, and we should respect them and put aside all the differences. Let us move ahead and lead Nigeria to the promise land.

Abdulrazaq O Hamzat
Discus4now@yahoo.com


http://saharareporters.com/article/war-against-biafra-abdulrazaq-o-hamzat

Nigeria is a mission to be accomplished by Nigerians...

good to know

noted

SEE BABA IYABO

SEE BABA IYABO

Hello fellow nairalanders,

It occur to me that we have different kind of Nigerians, and it would be a great deal if we identify the kind of Nigerian you are.

We have some Nigerians who wish,they just wish everything is working in Nigeria ,but since it is not working,they felt their is nothing to be done than to always condemn the country.

Some Nigerians don't even wish anything should get better,they believe the life abroad is all they would ever wanted,so they don't care about Nigeria.

Some understand the difficulties of today,they want to change the situation,but they don't know what to do.

And others are Nigerians,who understand the challenges,ready to work to change it and needed other to feel the same and join the process.

What kind of Nigerian are you?

Victoria Ibezim-Ohaeri
Please someone should enlighten me on the procedure(s) for renouncing one's citizenship from his/her country of birth.

ENUFF!

may be them go carry am commot for aso rock

Lol

osundefender.org/?p=75603

when we talk about democracy and peoples welfare which is the primary basis of governance,mimiko is better and okorocha best

president jonathan would leave aso rock by 2015-obj

.

.

?

Taraba Governor Danbaba Suntai Reportedly Brain-Damaged

Governor Danbaba Suntai of Taraba State, who was seriously injured when his plane crashed on October 25 in Yola, capital of Adamawa State, has reportedly suffered extensive brain damage and even failed to recognize members of a presidential delegation that visited him at a hospital in Hanover, Germany, an authoritative source has told SaharaReporters.

A source close to a senior member of the delegation which was led by Senate President, David Mark, included Governor Ibrahim Yakowa of Kaduna State, President Goodluck Jonathan’s chief of staff, Mike Oghiadomhe, also on the delegation was John Kennedy Opara, the secretary of the Nigerian Christian Pilgrim Commission (NCPC) and the Chaplain of the Presidential Villa Chapel, Venerable Obioma Onwuzurumba, described the trip to see Mr. Suntai as highly secretive. SaharaReporters learnt that members of the delegation had officially traveled to Vatican City in Rome to witness the consecration of Archbishop John Onaiyekan as a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. After the ceremony in Italy, the delegation then made a quick detour to Germany to see the injured Mr. Suntai.

Our source said members of the delegation were shocked to see Mr. Suntai in a vegetative state. “His condition was so bad that they could not publicly disclose his condition after they returned to Nigeria,” said the source.

Since Mr. Suntai’s airlift to Germany, officials of the Taraba State government have engaged in propaganda, claiming that the governor was making remarkable recovery. But our sources, including an official of the state government, admitted that Mr. Suntai’s mental faculty had deteriorated since the accident and that his memory was virtually impaired.

“It is possible that he suffered brain damage because there was some delay before he could be taken abroad,” said a state official.

A Taraba-born political activist who is based in Abuja, has likened the present hide and seek game on the status of the Taraba state governor to the days of late president Umaru Musa Yar’Adua when his true state of health was concealed from Nigerians in order to prevent his vice, Goodluck Jonathan from being sworn-in as acting president.

According to him: “We all know how President Umaru Yar’Adua’s people continued to deceive Nigerians that the man was recovering well and how they even brought him back in a comatose state and declared that he was in control of Nigeria,” said the activist. He added: “I hope President Jonathan and the PDP are not planning a similar scenario whereby they will declare that Governor Suntai is in control – until they find a malleable successor who suits them.

“The fact that the people of Taraba have not heard from or seen the governor since the air crash on October 25 2012 means that the man is no longer fit to govern them,” he said.

Culled From Saharareporters

http://www.informationnigeria.org/2012/12/taraba-governor-danbaba-suntai-reportedly-brain-damaged.html

A friends just sent this to me and l thought is worth shearing. Laugh wan tear my belle.

Stupidity is when you don’t have a bicycle and you give your last penny to your pastor to buy a jet.......
Mumu is when you can’t pay your children’s school fees and yet have money to contribute to your church to build expensive school which your children will never attend...
Ignorance is w
hen you believe it when your pastors tells you not to live worldly life, and yet he enjoys all the best things in the world, the fine houses, cars, jets, babies etc, while you are waiting till you get to heaven to enjoy your own....
Idiocy is when you refuse to take your very sick child to the hospital because your pastor said you should not do so, yet that same pastor secretly runs to USA for medical attention any time he has an headache...
Kolo is when you see a poor beggar on the road and you refuse to give him 50 naira out of the 5000 naira in your pocket because it is your tithe money....
You are a zombie when you trek, dance and gallivant for 30 kilometers under the hot sun sweating and smelling like shit during your revival program, while your pastor is inside a full option, factory fitted air-conditioned­ state of the art SUV with his delectable wife slowing driving along the road.

Stop worshiping your pastors!!! They are human being like you, they don’t have no power (most of them)! If they had power they claim they have, Nigeria would not be the way it is.

NOTE:
Ken is not the author, he is the shearer...lol.

Heart Attack & Water


Interesting! And it even makes sense!

Something I didn't know either!
I asked my Doctor why do I and other people
urinate so much at night time.

Answer from my Cardiac Doctor = Gravity holds
water in the lower part of your body when you
are upright.

When you lie down and the lower body (legs
and other things) seeks level with the kidneys it
is then that the kidneys remove the water
because it is easier.

I knew you need your minimum water to help
flush the toxins out of your body, but this was
news to me.

Correct time to drink water... Very Important.
From A Cardiac Specialist!

Drinking water at a certain time maximizes its
effectiveness on the body:

2 glasses of water after waking up - helps activate
internal organs

1 glass of water 30 minutes before a meal - helps
digestion

1 glass of water before taking a bath or soaking
in a hot tub - helps lower blood pressure

1 glass of water before going to bed - avoids
stroke or heart attack

*** Please pass this to the people you care
about..... I can also add to this...

My Physician told me that water at bed time will
also help prevent night time leg cramps. Your leg
muscles are seeking hydration when they cramp

and wake you up with a Charlie Horse.

Like a month ago,i opened a thread asking about this policy,seeking information from anyone who has it. This his after searching everywhere for relevant info with no success. My believe was that,there are some people who may have details on this forum, since they always claim to be the Governor's supporter,but they all failed in their supporters duty as supporters.

I made efforts to reach some of the Governor's S.A's,like 3 of them, asking for information about it, but they all have nothing meaningful to say about it as at then.

I am happy today to read that finally,the policy is being implemented.


My message to all pro and anti one politician or the other,Governance is not about party of affiliation,it is about service to the people. Stop attacking people because you unreasonably like a party of governor,you should rather help the Governor or party to offer best service for the people.

.

Hum

The news reaching me right now says that, the UN had accepted palestine as a member state after conducting a voting excercise. Only 9 member voted against palestine,41 abstain and others voted in favor. Good development.

Nearly 140 countries voted in the U.N. on Thursday to recognize the Palestinian territories as a "nonmember observer state" over the strenuous objections of Israel and the U.S., marking a milestone with potentially far-reaching consequences for the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict.

The 138-9 vote, with 41 abstentions, came on the 65th anniversary of the assembly's resolution calling for the partition of British mandate Palestine into Jewish and Arab states.

The new status, which is akin to the Vatican's own stature in the world body, marked a rare victory for the Fatah party's diplomatic path toward statehood after its rival Hamas's military strategy had taken the spotlight during the recent Gaza conflict.

Palestinians in the West Bank city of Ramallah, who were crowded around outdoor television screens during the vote in New York erupted into applause, whistles and hugs, as some people fired guns into the air and beeped car horns in celebration.

"We didn't come here seeking to delegitimize a state established years ago, and that is Israel; rather we came to affirm the legitimacy of the state that must now achieve its independence, and that is Palestine," Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, told the assembly to a standing ovation.

The immediate question was whether the vote spurs or further delays the resumption of talks between Israel and the Palestinians that Israel says are needed to finalize the status of the West Bank and Gaza territories.

While Mr. Abbas argued the vote would create the momentum to resume moribund talks, the U.S. and Israel denounced the vote as a "unilateral" move in the multilateral assembly.

"Today's unfortunate and counterproductive resolution places further obstacles to peace," said U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice. "No resolution can create a state where none exists."

She added, "Palestinians will wake up tomorrow and find that little has changed saved the prospect of direct talks have receded."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed the vote as an empty gesture that makes little difference for Palestinians, and makes peace prospects more remote.

"The decision at the U.N. today won't change a thing on the ground,'' he said prior to the vote. "Peace will be reached through agreements reached between Jerusalem and Ramallah, and not through declarations passed at the U.N.''

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dismissed the vote as an empty gesture that makes little difference for Palestinians, and makes peace prospects more remote.

"The decision at the U.N. today won't change a thing on the ground,'' he said prior to the vote. "Peace will be reached through agreements reached between Jerusalem and Ramallah, and not through declarations passed at the U.N.''

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578149193307234514.html

hum

Raphael Ogar Oko
On Sanusi's Recent Economic Theory of Sack of Workers and Scrapping of LGAs

No economy will grow through the sack of its workforce and destruction of structures of governance. I therefore do not think that Sanusi's recommendation of sack of 50% of workers in Nigeria and scrapping of LGAs will be a solution to the challenges that the nation is facing. Rather, what is needed is to strengthen the capacity of the workforce to become more effective and efficient and to formulate policies that will make workers to create more wealth for the nation. The LGAs have not committed any crime against the nation but people have prevented them from fulfilling the purpose of their creation. It is therefore wrong to focus on scrapping the LGAs instead of making them to work better for the people.

If Sanusi's recommendation is accepted, it is likely that most of the workers of the CBN may not even be needed including his exalted office. If we have to scrap the tiers of government that are not viable as he has postulated, we may as well end up scrapping the Federal Government of Nigeria and the 36 States Governments and even the Ministry of the FCT. The consequence will be anarchy, joblessness and all sorts of confusion. I hope that this is not what CBN Governor Sanusi is proposing. We do not need to throw away the dirty water with the baby. Let us re-examine issues that make workers not to work and LGAs not to govern the people locally. This is not the age of expulsion and destruction but the era of admission and construction

YOU GOT IT WRONG LAMIDO. THE LIFE SPAN OF A CIVIL SERVANT IN NIGERIA IS 35YRS.GET 35 CORRUPT OFFICIALS WHO STOLE BILLIONS OF NAIRA AND EACH ONE CAN PAY ALL CIVIL SERVANT SALARIES FOR A YEAR. MR LAMIDO WHAT ALTERNATIVE DO YOU HAVE FOR THE WORKERS AND THE CORRUPT POLITICIANS.IS THE CIVIL SERVANT THE PROBLEM OR WILL-POWER TO DO THE RIGHT THING FROM LEADERS LIKE YOU.FIGHT CORRUPTION WITH OUR OFFICE PLEASE DON'T CREATE C0NFUSSION AND TENSION BY SENDING.PEOPLE TO LOOSE THEIR JOB AND JOIN MILITANT,ARM-ROBBERY,KIDNAPPERS,BOKO-HARAM. CBN GOVERNOR SHOULD HELP IN SOLVING PROBLEM NOT BY SOLVING LITTLE AND CREATING A BIGGER ONE.
FOR EVERY ONE CIVIL SERVANT IN NIGERIA;MORE THAN 10 PEOPLE FEED FROM HIS SALARY.SO SACKING 10000 IS CREATING MORE THAN 100000 PROBLEM.

Vanguard reports Pastor Adeboye as telling his Redeemed Church congregants: “Anyone who is not paying his tithe is a God robber and from now on let it be clear; anyone who is not a regular tither cannot be married in the church. Anyone who is not a regular tither cannot be ordained in the church. We will not ordain robbers, nor will the church accept a non-regular tither to build in the sprawling redemption camp because we do not want to dwell with robbers of God.

The definition of a robber is becoming complex, for those looters of our national heritage and pay in millions to our churches as their tithes: are they robbers in the eyes of our men of God? somebody should help me out

ANALYSE THIS:

A Policy to allow States or Geo-political Zones in Nigeria to build own Refineries and buy crude from Federal Government rather than the present policy where the Federal Government exports our crude to companies of individuals, states and federal governments of other countries to be refined and then imported to Nigerians at unacceptable costs.

Is this possible? If yes, how? If no, why?

Lol