Katsumoto:

[b]As at January 1966, there were 330 officers in the Armed Forces.

Igbo (Other South) Yoruba North Total
104 43 67 116 330[/b]Using the numbers above, Igbo had approximately 30% in the armed forces.

There were 25 coup plotters in the January 66 coup who were officers; 21 were Igbo (I can provide the list if you want it). Which means Igbo contributed 84% of officers. Of the four who were non-Igbo, three were junior officers(lieutenants). If your agreement were to be accepted, Igbo should have only contributed 30% of coup plotters.

Source: Robin Luckham, The Nigerian Military: A Sociological Analysis of Authority and Revolt, 1960-67 (Cambridge: At the University Press 1971):231.

Please list the Igbo elders who were killed in jan 66 or the Northerners who were coup plotters.

It is disingenuous to include NCOs as part of the coup plotters since NCOs only follow orders. For instance, Nzeogwu murdered sgt Oyeleke who refused to fire shots at Bello's house. Try to be informed before passing factually inaccurate information to others.

You simply can not keep quoting statistics that are structurally wrong and you can not clearly provide one single variable to sustain your argument. I shall challenge you and Robin to proffer the names of the officers in column of Igbo, Yoruba, Other South and North.

Dede1:


You simply can not keep quoting statistics that are structurally wrong and you can not clearly provide one single variable to sustain your argument. I shall challenge you and Robin to proffer the names of the officers in column of Igbo, Yoruba, Other South and North.

Why don't you produce your own list if you want to dispute the one I provided? Do you realise that after all this time, you challenge every single literature that does not agree with your positions but rather amazingly, you have failed to produce a single, documented literature to at least support your position. My friend, your word is not gospel; you must do better than that.

Katsumoto:


The key point to watch in the numbers I posted was the percentage of Igbo officers in the Army as at Jan 1966. Amongst all the tribes, they had a majority but they did not have a majority when all the tribes are added together. They had 30% which is significantly less than 50%. I repeat in case you missed it; Igbos had 30% officers in the Army but 84% in the first coup.

You are actually proving my point; was that not sufficient motive to label it an ethnically motivated coup? Igbo officers were passed over for promotion to support the quota system. Were Yoruba officers like Obasanjo, Adekunle, and Rotimi not passed over for promotion as well?

Let us look at other facts
1. The PM, Premiers of the West and North Regions, senior military officers from the West and North as well as others making a total of 27 people who died that night; only one was Igbo. Are you suggesting that the make-up of the plotters(predominantly Igbo) and the make-up of the victims (predominantly non-Igbo) was a mere coincidence?

[b]2. There was a constitutional crisis in Jan 1965 in which Zik refused to swear-in Balewa; Zik called in the service chiefs and he was politely told the limit of his powers by Sir Adetokunbo Ademola (Chief Justice) and the service chiefs. Admiral Wey told him that they reported to the PM. After realising the extent of his powers, Zik swore Balewa in. This was exactly one year before the coup.[/b]3. The union of NPC and Akintola's NNDP meant that more posts and appointments went to Yoruba sons at the expense of Ndigbo after the 1964 elections

4. Zik was tipped off by his alleged cousin Ifeajuna, the real leader of the coup. Zik was in fact cooling off in the West indies while his colleagues were being slaughtered.

5. After murdering Balewa and organising the murder of others, Ifeajuna ran to the East and the first place he went to was to Enugu to parley with Okpara (premier of the East, an Igbo man). I have been waiting for someone to explain this; perhaps you can. Please do not sidestep this point.

I have given you fact-supported motive as well as facts which support my position. Please don't come back with conjecture; I am not interested in what-ifs, supposing, if they wanted to, etc statements. If you can supply any new facts, I may be willing to change my position.


Something else that a lot of people miss. The coup had two very different objectives. The first objective as epitomised by Nzeogwu and Ademoyega was a noble one but this two (Nzeogwu and Ademoyega) were only recruited approximately 3 months to the coup. The second objective was an ethnic one and was camouflaged by the first objective. People naively or disingenuously use the first noble objective to excuse the brutal manner of the assassinations which betrays the second objective. Even Nzeogwu and Captain Nwobosisi acknowledge that there was an ethnic undertone with the execution of the coup in Lagos.

You keep posting some of these deceptive and erroneous articles laden with conjectures on this forum. There was no constitutional crisis in 1965. The issue was the alleged wanton rigging of election by the NPC and NNDP that saw political riot in western region of Nigeria. Yes, Zik refused to swear-in Tafawa as the Prime Minister. However, the President does have constitutional issues if he (the President) wanted to deploy Nigerian armed forces to deal with crisis in western region without declaration of state of emergency. The minister of defense is an NPC stalwart and majority of cabinet members are drawn from coalition parties of NPC and NNDP.

Tafawa did not want to give in to Zik’s plank since he (PM) wanted to declare state of emergency in western region that would give him the rare political opportunity to stack the deck with NNDP cronies in western region in other deal AG the final blow.

Dede1:


You simply can not keep quoting statistics that are structurally wrong and you can not clearly provide one single variable to sustain your argument. I shall challenge you and Robin to proffer the names of the officers in column of Igbo, Yoruba, Other South and North.

You have to publish the names first since you are the poster that supplied the statistics to support your skewed argument. Remember you have the help of Robin Luckham. I would only counter with the list of Igbo officers without empirical research.

Dede1:

You keep posting some of these deceptive and erroneous articles laden with conjectures on this forum. There was no constitutional crisis in 1965. The issue was the alleged wanton rigging of election by the NPC and NNDP that saw political riot in western region of Nigeria. Yes, Zik refused to swear-in Tafawa as the Prime Minister. However, the President does have constitutional issues if he (the President) wanted to deploy Nigerian armed forces to deal with crisis in western region without declaration of state of emergency. The minister of defense is an NPC stalwart and majority of cabinet members are drawn from coalition parties of NPC and NNDP.

Tafawa did not want to give in to Zik’s plank since he (PM) wanted to declare state of emergency in western region that would give the rare political opportunity to stack the deck with NNDP cronies in western region in other deal AG the final blow.  

And how do you drescribe the word constitional crisis when you have the following
1. President refused to swear-in PM
2. Chief Justice is called for interpretation of law
3. Service chiefs explained to Zik that they answer to PM

You can disagree with everything but I don't really care. Your opinion doesn't trump publicly available information. It's the other way around. For those interested in the facts, see below.

'7. Constitutional crisis of January 1965: Following the controversial Federal Election of December 1964, ceremonial President Azikiwe of the NCNC, urged by radical intelligentsia, refused to invite Prime Minister Balewa of the NPC to form a government and issued orders mobilizing the Army to enforce his authority to suspend the government, annul the elections and appoint a temporary interim administrator to conduct elections.  However, the oath of allegiance of the officer corps was not only to the Commander in Chief but also to the government of Nigeria. The Army Act (#26 of 1960) and the Navy Act (#9 of 1960) were also clear on lines of authority and control. While the Army and Navy were "under the general authority" of the Defence
Minister in matters of "command, discipline and administration", the authority for operational use and control was vested in the Council of Ministers and the Prime Minister.  President Azikiwe and the service chiefs were so advised by the Chief Justice and Attorney General of the Federation. Thus the Navy Commander, Commodore Wey politely told the President that the Navy (under him), the Army (under Major General Welby-Everard) and the Police (under Louis Edet) had decided to refuse his orders.   After a week of cliff hanging tension, in which the military stood aside, a political compromise was eventually reached and a government of "national unity" formed under Prime Minister Balewa.  In the US Diplomatic Archives: Nigeria
1964-1968, the situation was characterized in this manner:  "Very complicated African politics, in which tribes, religions and economics all play a part, are involved in the situation. The Northern Premier is at odds with the Eastern Premier in whose region large oil deposits have been discovered. In the heat of the election campaign, there have been threats of secession by the east; threats of violence "that would make Congo look like child's play" from the north, "  At the same time, strong rumors of an impending Army coup purportedly planned for the annual Army Shooting competition were also heard in political circles.  But the status quo held, albeit temporarily.'

http://www.dawodu.com/omoigui5.htm

Dede1:

You have to publish the names first since you are the poster that supplied the statistics to support your skewed argument. Remember you have the help of Robin Luckham. I would only counter with the list of Igbo officers without imperial research.

If you are interested in the names, then please go and read Robin Luckam's book. I have provided the statistics which support my own argument. I don't have time to type 330 names and arrange them in ethnic groups.

These 2 men are back at it again, quoting and unquoting, pasting and deleting. No new ideas, no new approach, ever boring posts devoid of logic and common sense.

Katsumoto:

A write-up which supports some of my points as well as add to the original discussion about Ironsi.

'The majority of those murdered were northerners, accompanied by some westerners and two Midwesterners.No easterner lost his or her life.On January 16, rather than approve the appointment of Zanna Bukar Dipcharima, a politician of northern origin, as acting Prime Minister, the acting President, Nwafor Orizu, himself of eastern origin, handed over power to Major-General JTU Aguiyi-Ironsi, the GOC of the Nigerian Army, also of eastern origin. This was allegedly at the behest of the rump cabinet, allegedly to enable Ironsi put down the revolt which, as of then, had already failed in southern Nigeria.Until it became apparent recently in separate testimony by Alhaji Shehu Shagari and Chief Richard Akinjide, it had always been publicly assumed in the lay Press that the hand-over was voluntary although unconstitutional - since no such provision existed in the Nigerian constitution.However, it does seem that as far back as 1969, Martin Dent pointed out the involuntary nature of the so-called hand-over in an academic paper, based on an interview with Alhaji Shettima Ali Monguno.

In July 2000, at a public book launching ceremony in Nigeria, Chief Richard Akinjide stated: “Talking on the first coup, when Balewa got missing, we knew Okotie-Eboh had been held, we knew Akintola had been killed. We, the members of the Balewa cabinet started meeting. But how can you have a cabinet meeting without the Prime Minister acting or Prime Minister presiding. So, unanimously, we nominated acting Prime Minister amongst us. Then we continued holding our meetings. Then we got a message that we should all assemble at the Cabinet office. All the Ministers were requested by the G.O.C. of the Nigerian Army, General Ironsi to assemble. What was amazing at that time was that Ironsi was going all over Lagos unarmed. We assembled there. Having nominated ZANA Diphcharima as our acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister, whose whereabout we didn't know, we approached the acting President, Nwafor Orizu to swear him in because he cannot legitimately act as the Prime Minister except he is sworn-in. Nwafor Orizu refused. He said he needed to contact Zik who was then in West Indies.

Under the law, that is, the Interpretation Act, as acting President, Nwazor Orizu had all the powers of the President. The GOC said he wanted to see all the cabinet ministers. And so we assembled at the cabinet office. Well, I have read in many books saying that we handed over to the military. We did not hand-over. [b]Ironsi told us that "you either hand over as gentlemen or you hand-over by force". Those were his words. [/b]Is that voluntary hand-over? So we did not hand-over. We wanted an Acting Prime Minister to be in place but Ironsi forced us, and I use the word force advisedly, to handover to him. He was controlling the soldiers. [b]The acting President, Nwafor Orizu, who did not cooperate with us, cooperated with the GOC. [/b]Dr. Orizu and the GOC prepared speeches which Nwafor Orizu broadcast handing over the government of the country to the army. I here state again categorically as a member of that cabinet that we did not hand-over voluntarily. It was a coup. “ Corroborating Akinjide’s account, according to Shehu Shagari, in his Book “Beckoned to
Serve”, “…, ….At about 7.00 am, I returned to Dipcharima’s residence to meet with some NPC ministers who had gathered there. Dipcharima was then the most senior NPC minister available. We received the latest reports on the situation, first from Alhaji Maitama Sule, Minister of Mines and Power, who had visited the PM’s residence by bicycle! We then heard from Alhaji Ibrahim Tako Galadima, the acting Minister of Defence, who had brought along with him Chief Fani-Kayode.

However, we decided to recognize Dipcharima, a Kanuri from Bornu, as our interim leader; and to ask the acting President, Dr. Orizu (President Azikiwe was away on leave), to appoint Dipcharima acting Prime Minister. [/b]We also summoned Major General Ironsi and gave him full authority to use every force at his disposal to suppress the rebellion. He moved his headquarters temporarily to the police headquarters at moloney street to facilitate easy communication with army units in the regions.  While at Dipcharima’s residence, we contacted the British High Commission and requested for military assistance in the event that our loyal troops should require any. [b]The response was positive, but the British insisted that the request must be written by the PM; or, in his absence, by a properly appointed deputy. We, therefore, drove to the residence of Dr. Orizu, and requested him to appoint Dipcharima acting prime minister. Dr. Orizu requested to see our NCNC colleagues to confirm whether they supported our proposition, and they joined us soon afterwards. They had apparently been caucusing at Dr. Mbadiwe’s residence. He (Mbadiwe) was their choice of acting Prime Minister. This was naturally unacceptable to us since the NPC was the major governing party.

While we were at Orizu’s residence, Major-General Ironsi, who had seemingly secured Lagos, came in with some armed escorts. He requested for a tete-a-tete with Orizu. The two had a 40 minutes discussion in another room, while we waited anxiously in the sitting room, with the armed soldiers standing and staring at us. When Major-General Ironsi finally emerged, he talked to Dipcharima sotto voce; and then drove off with his troops. Dr. Orizu then joined us, regretted his inability in the circumstances to oblige our request. He suggested we all return to our homes and wait until we were required. All efforts to get any clarification failed, and we left in utter desperation.

In fact [b]President Azikiwe’s personal physician, Dr. Humphrey Idemudia Idehen, abandoned him abroad when he got tired of the “health trip”, having run out of his personal estacode allowance, unaware that there may have been a good reason why Azikiwe did not want to return to Nigeria, after their original planned return date in December 1965 passed.Not even the Commonwealth Leaders’ Conference hosted for the first time by the country in early January was incentive enough for the President to return, for obvious reasons of protocol.[/b]However, after the coup, in a statement to the Press in England on January 16, among other things, Azikiwe did not condemn the coup per se, but said: “Violence has never been an instrument used by us, as founding fathers of the Nigerian Republic, to solve political problems. ….I consider it most unfortunate that our 'Young Turks' decided to introduce the element of violent revolution into Nigerian politics. No matter how they and our general public might have been provoked by obstinate and perhaps grasping politicians, it is an unwise policy……, As far as I am concerned, I regard the killings of our political and military leaders as a national calamity….”

Major Ifeajuna was later to be accused by Major Patrick Nzeogwu, leader of northern operations, of bungling or ignoring an apparent understanding to assassinate General Ironsi in Lagos - an oversight, or “misguided consideration” (to use Nzeogwu’s words)that caused the failure of the coup.Indeed, Nzeogwu bluntly declared publicly that the execution of the coup in the South was tribalistic. Captain Emmanuel Nwobosi (rtd), leader of operations in the Western region, has since corroborated the view that operations in Lagos were compromised by nepotism.[b]For this and other reasons, over the years, some analysts have come to view Nzeogwu, who was recruited two full months after the plot was already in progress, as a tool in a plot he never fully understood.[/b]Indeed, in offering condolences for the death of the Sardauna of Sokoto, ex-Senate President Nwafor Orizu told Alhaji Shehu Shagari that Major Nzeogwu was “an unknown entity among the Ibos (sic) in the Eastern region.”

http://www.citizensfornigeria.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=45

For bolded statement in the first paragraph, nothing can be further from the truth than this conjecture. In a coalition government, one of the parties in coalition can not caucus to impose a Prime Minister on the other party in coalition or on the nation.  

For bold statements in paragraphs 2 to 4 as accredited to one Akinjide Richard are inherent falsehoods that tend to neglect the decency of academia. I can listen to any fine Yoruba first republic politician but Akinjide Richard the man who incorporated tribalism into Nigerian academia when he was minister of education. Deceptive stories such as these useless statements are bane of Nigeria’s socio-political growth. The last time I checked though, the Tafawa Balewa cabinet was not exclusively NPC and NNDP ministers. It included the ministers from NCNC who also caucused in the resident of K O Mbadiwe and nominated the host as the PM nominee from NCNC and its coalition partners. The coalition partners in government thus NPC and NCNC could not reach a consensus on the nominated candidatures of Zipchrima and Mbadiwe, Orizu as the acting President relied on the constitutional mandate to call in the military to deal with situation at hand.

It is unfortunate the Akinjide thought that NPC was major governing party. I must remind the Richard Akinjide that fact the coalition partner are equal in government since one of the them could not form a government without the other. NPC did not produce the Head of State, Senate President, Speaker of House and Ranking Minister. NPC might have produce ministers of defense, mines and power and capital territory. NCNC equally produced ministers of finance, foreign affairs, transport, trade and industry and Justice.  

These deceitful behaviors displayed by the so-called leaders of cesspit called Nigeria are very unhealthy to new generations.

Katsumoto:

And how do you drescribe the word constitional crisis when you have the following
1. President refused to swear-in PM
2. Chief Justice is called for interpretation of law
3. Service chiefs explained to Zik that they answer to PM

You can disagree with everything but I don't really care. Your opinion doesn't trump publicly available information. It's the other way around. For those interested in the facts, see below.

'7. Constitutional crisis of January 1965: Following the controversial Federal Election of December 1964, ceremonial President Azikiwe of the NCNC, urged by radical intelligentsia, refused to invite Prime Minister Balewa of the NPC to form a government and issued orders mobilizing the Army to enforce his authority to suspend the government, annul the elections and appoint a temporary interim administrator to conduct elections. However, the oath of allegiance of the officer corps was not only to the Commander in Chief but also to the government of Nigeria. The Army Act (#26 of 1960) and the Navy Act (#9 of 1960) were also clear on lines of authority and control. While the Army and Navy were "under the general authority" of the Defence
Minister in matters of "command, discipline and administration", the authority for operational use and control was vested in the Council of Ministers and the Prime Minister. President Azikiwe and the service chiefs were so advised by the Chief Justice and Attorney General of the Federation. Thus the Navy Commander, Commodore Wey politely told the President that the Navy (under him), the Army (under Major General Welby-Everard) and the Police (under Louis Edet) had decided to refuse his orders. After a week of cliff hanging tension, in which the military stood aside, a political compromise was eventually reached and a government of "national unity" formed under Prime Minister Balewa. In the US Diplomatic Archives: Nigeria
1964-1968, the situation was characterized in this manner: "Very complicated African politics, in which tribes, religions and economics all play a part, are involved in the situation. The Northern Premier is at odds with the Eastern Premier in whose region large oil deposits have been discovered. In the heat of the election campaign, there have been threats of secession by the east; threats of violence "that would make Congo look like child's play" from the north, " At the same time, strong rumors of an impending Army coup purportedly planned for the annual Army Shooting competition were also heard in political circles. But the status quo held, albeit temporarily.'

http://www.dawodu.com/omoigui5.htm

Sometimes Nigerians shoot themselves on the foot while in a hest to rubbish ethnic group other than theirs. You can not have constitutional crisis when there is no PM. The coalition partners were still ruminating on the fallout about massive rigging of the just concluded election allegedly by NPC. Western region was in flames as result of the outcome of the election.

Yes, Zik has refused to call Tafawa to form a government so as to be swear-in as the PM. Also, the constitution has given explicit provision to PM on the deployment of troops and police. What the Omoigui did not include that Head of State has partially granted provision to deploy troops and police. It was about politics because when the dust settled, NPC and NCNC still joined effort to form the government.

Dede1:



Sometimes Nigerians shoot themselves on the foot while in a hest to rubbish ethnic group other than theirs. You can not have constitutional crisis when there is no PM. The coalition partners were still ruminating on the fallout about massive rigging of the just concluded election allegedly by NPC. Western region was in flames as result of the outcome of the election.

Yes, Zik has refused to call Tafawa to form a government so as to be swear-in as the PM. Also, the constitution has given explicit provision to PM on the deployment of troops and police. What the Omoigui did not include that Head of State has partially granted provision to deploy troops and police. It was about politics because when the dust settled, NPC and NCNC still joined effort to form the government.

The part in bold: Is that your own political theory or where did u get that from?? It is pure fallacy.

Dede1:


For bolded statement in the first paragraph, nothing can be further from the truth than this conjecture. In a coalition government, one of the parties in coalition can not caucus to impose a Prime Minister on the other party in coalition or on the nation.

For bold statements in paragraphs 2 to 4 as accredited to one Akinjide Richard are inherent falsehoods that tend to neglect the decency of academia. I can listen to any fine Yoruba first republic politician but Akinjide Richard the man who incorporated tribalism into Nigerian academia when he was minister of education. Deceptive stories such as these useless statements are bane of Nigeria’s socio-political growth. The last time I checked though, the Tafawa Balewa cabinet was not exclusively NPC and NNDP ministers. It included the ministers from NCNC who also caucused in the resident of K O Mbadiwe and nominated the host as the PM nominee from NCNC and its coalition partners. The coalition partners in government thus NPC and NCNC could not reach a consensus on the nominated candidatures of Zipchrima and Mbadiwe,[b] Orizu as the acting President relied on the constitutional mandate to call in the military to deal with situation at hand.[/b]It is unfortunate the Akinjide thought that NPC was major governing party. I must remind the Richard Akinjide that fact the coalition partner are equal in government since one of the them could not form a government without the other. NPC did not produce the Head of State, Senate President, Speaker of House and Ranking Minister. NPC might have produce ministers of defense, mines and power and capital territory. NCNC equally produced ministers of finance, foreign affairs, transport, trade and industry and Justice.

These deceitful behaviors displayed by the so-called leaders of cesspit called Nigeria are very unhealthy to new generations.

So we should disregard Akinjide (SAN, former Attorney General and Minister of Justice) and believe you Dede (a nonentity) Your sheer arrogance can only lead to destruction!!

Then, which constitution empowers Orizu to hand-over to the military when an agreement could not be reached on the choice of a PM?

X-factoria:

The part in bold: Is that your own political theory or where did u get that from?? It is pure fallacy.

Don't mind Dede1; Tafawa Balewa was elected PM but the reason why there was no PM was because Zik refused to swear him in. Hence why it was called a constitutional crisis. Dede1 is just playing with words.

X-factoria:

So we should disregard Akinjide (SAN, former Attorney General and Minister of Justice) and believe you Dede (a nonentity) Your sheer arrogance can only lead to destruction!!

Then, which constitution empowers Orizu to hand-over to the military when an agreement could not be reached on the choice of a PM?

You are a typical Nigerian who is so lazy to seek knowledge and would solely occupy him/her self with vanity such as SAN. You are a retar.ded mor.on. I am not a hero worshiper.

Why do you not ask Akinjide if the nomination of party candidates for the post of PM is done at the house of a fellow politician? In fact, I do not entertain comments from wily imbeciles such as you.

The tribal icon, Richard Akinjide, has audacious pedigree to spew crap because Ironsi miraculous held on to the command of the army in certain section of Lagos. I guess it is the same Akinjide who could not venture close to a mile of his resident during the moment in discuss.

I thought you know your history. The government headed by PM Tafawa Balewa had been overthrown. Also, some members of the parliament had been eliminated.

Given the situation at hand, if the parties in coalition government could not agree to consensus candidate for PM the president had constitutional mandate to dissolve the parliament and apply the necessary means to arrest the situation.

Katsumoto:



Don't mind Dede1; Tafawa Balewa was elected PM but the reason why there was no PM was because Zik refused to swear him in. Hence why it was called a constitutional crisis. Dede1 is just playing with words.

The general election does not elect PM. When the parliament is dissolved and a new election scheduled, the position of PM ceases to exist. The Permanent Secretaries run their respective ministries until election is conducted. A sitting PM could loose a re-election bid. Even when the sitting PM wins reelection bid, the position of PM could be contested by any person from PM’s party. It is even worse when there is a coalition government where the coalition partners have equal stake to PM position.

It is intellectually dishonesty to write or insinuate that Tafawa Balewa has been reelected as PM when the coalition partners frowned at the alleged massive rigging by NPC.

Katsumoto:



Don't mind Dede1; Tafawa Balewa was elected PM but the reason why there was no PM was because Zik refused to swear him in. Hence why it was called a constitutional crisis. Dede1 is just playing with words.

Your earlier list of Igbos involved in the coup, cover up, and plan to overtake other Nigerians have always included Zik, I guess his refusal to swear in Tafawa, his oversea trip when the coup was going on, and his "inability to apologize" for the coup were the evidence you needed.
I have followed your statements on the need to justify massacre of Igbos, and their subsequent subjugation by the Nigerian state. The more I read your comments, the more I understand why a lucrative cottage industry has grown just to prove that the Igbos, and I mean ALL and everyone of them planned the first coup, benefitted from it, and really had to be paid back.
Your line of argument and methods of bigotry has been used many times in history, and you'll fool nobody here.

naijaking1:

Your earlier list of Igbos involved in the coup, cover up, and plan to overtake other Nigerians have always included Zik, I guess his refusal to swear in Tafawa, his oversea trip when the coup was going on, and his "inability to apologize" for the coup were the evidence you needed.
[b]I have followed your statements on the need to justify massacre of Igbos, and their subsequent subjugation by the Nigerian state. [/b]The more I read your comments, the more I understand why a lucrative cottage industry has grown just to prove that the Igbos, and I mean ALL and everyone of them planned the first coup, benefitted from it, and really had to be paid back.
Your line of argument and methods of bigotry has been used many times in history, and you'll fool nobody here.

I have to draw the line here; can you find any post that I have ever made, either in this thread or any other, where I justified the massacre of Igbos?

I find certain individuals attempts at demonising others during debates a tad bit silly. Instead of finding points and facts that support their argument, they resort to juvenile tactics in a bid to win a debate. Here we were discussing the constitutional crisis in January 66 and you somehow manage to link it to the massacre of Igbos. Here I was thinking you were a fair and rational person.

Dede1:

The general election does not elect PM. When the parliament is dissolved and a new election scheduled, the position of PM ceases to exist. The Permanent Secretaries run their respective ministries until election is conducted. A sitting PM could loose a re-election bid. Even when the sitting PM wins reelection bid, the position of PM could be contested by any person from PM’s party. It is even worse when there is a coalition government where the coalition partners have equal stake to PM position.

It is intellectually dishonesty to write or insinuate that Tafawa Balewa has been reelected as PM when the coalition partners frowned at the alleged massive rigging by NPC.

I am sorry, was there another election before Balewa was sworn-in as PM? If there wasn't, then I am right to say he was elected, allegations of rigging remain that - allegations.

Katsumoto:

You are actually proving my point; was that not sufficient motive to label it an ethnically motivated coup? Igbo officers were passed over for promotion to support the quota system. Were Yoruba officers like Obasanjo, Adekunle, and Rotimi not passed over for promotion as well?

I am actually not proving your point here.

Stop and think harder about it.

A simple hypothetical should illustrate my point:

You are 1 of 14 athletes in segregated late 1950s South Carolina and you and your fellow athletes want to compete in the national (U.S.), state-wide competition at your level (high school, college, professional, etc.) and 11 out of 14 are the best in the sport but the state government says it will only fund/sponsor a team which adheres to a racial quota where 6 out of the 12 positions are reserved for people of a different race from your own, regardless of their athletic ability.

(a) Now if these 14 athletes took illegal, violent, and barbaric steps to see that merit was adhered to would you say that they had a black power/latino power/asian power/native american power etc. racial agenda?

(b) Now what if the 14 athletes dressed up in fancy suits, filed eloquent formal complaints, filed lawsuits, peacefully protested and took other civil approaches to see that the racial quota that had been declared without consent or voting was overturned and a merit system was adhered to? Would you still claim they had a racial empowerment agenda? Or would you admit that they were arguing for what is right?

Absolutely nothing has changed between (a) and (b) except for the method. Do not side step the parallels between (b) and modern and recent attempts to correct improper practices and laws by ordinary people. It would be difficult or impossible to ascribe a racial/ethnic empowerment agenda to any and every group which is or almost is racially or ethnically homogeneous and which uses method (b) if the actual complaint has legitimacy. There is no fundamental difference between (a) and (b) except the approach, yet an ethnic agenda is being assigned to a group that used method (a) merely by arguing that the overwhelming majority Igbo makeup of the coupists definitively suggests an ethnic agenda, when one could not just assert that this is self-evident for all cases in which a group which takes either method (a) or (b) in a similar situation is composed overwhelmingly of one ethnic group.

Do note that there are only a few areas where a quota system can be justified, such as to make up  for past discrimination with the hope of achieving equality, but can anyone name any past discrimination with regard to the 1950s - 1962 Nigerian military or the officer promotions therein?

With regard to Adekunle, Rotimi, etc., the Westerners and Midwesterners were not in the same position. Scroll down to page 100 of that google books link I posted in my previous post. You can clearly see where it states that prior to the 1962 quota system, two-thirds of officer positions had been going to Easterners. The author of that book is certainly not an Easterner.

1. The PM, Premiers of the West and North Regions, senior military officers from the West and North as well as others making a total of 27 people who died that night; only one was Igbo. Are you suggesting that the make-up of the plotters(predominantly Igbo) and the make-up of the victims (predominantly non-Igbo) was a mere coincidence?

Not at all a coincidence. Having a disproportionately higher number of military radicals and/or politicized soldiers (I think this is basically self-evident and I don't think it is at all a conjecture, but if you want, label it as such) in one ethnic group can give the false impression of a conspiratorial group. However having a higher proportion of political soldiers is not an amazing or unbelievable phenomenon when one also considers that there were also higher numbers of officer quality/material soldiers among Igbos with no fundamental explanation for that phenomenon besides culture. If you grow up in a culture where each man is his own sovereign and you bow to no one (not a detailed or precise representation of all Igbo societies, but a rough sketch) outside your own family isn't it plainly obvious that you'll have different political inclinations and responses to crises than someone from a culture where you pay obeisance to at least 8 different title holders and then to a king and never dare to go against their word?

Regardless of whether that is the case, if you want to go into the details, they have all been fleshed out before, but it wouldn't hurt to rehash what you already know.

a) All of those killed were seen as corrupt or morally compromised in some way, including Balewa, from a certain political (not ethnic, some AG Yorubas could have seen him the same way) perspective

b) The killings of the relatives of the targets or those that did not resist arrest were a result of the brutality of the coup (such as killing Akintola's nephew just for coming out of the house) and not merely for ethnic reasons.

c) The fact that the coup was already foiled by the time the "competent" or "honest" members (not Ifeajuna, for example) of the coup would have been able to kill the few lower priority Igbo targets that they had remaining out of their total hit list.

2. There was a constitutional crisis in Jan 1965 in which Zik refused to swear-in Balewa; Zik called in the service chiefs and he was politely told the limit of his powers by Sir Adetokunbo Ademola (Chief Justice) and the service chiefs. Admiral Wey told him that they reported to the PM. After realising the extent of his powers, Zik swore Balewa in. This was exactly one year before the coup.

I believe I somewhat understand the insinuation that is being made here but correct me if I'm wrong. In the book Biafra: the Making of A Nation, the authors (Nwankwo and Ifejika), writing very much from that era and from an Igbo perspective, strangely present Balewa's response of "No" to the question of whether he would concede leadership of government to Zik as though there was actually something wrong or inappropriate or power hungry about Balewa's response to that strange question. So if the authors of that book, who were well educated, were biased enough to think that there was anything unjust or wrong or out of place in Balewa not conceding to Zik when Balewa had no obligation to do so if he felt he were indeed the (properly) elected prime minister, it's not hard to imagine that less intelligent and less educated individuals could distort this sort of biased sentiment into a much simpler "get rid of Balewa" idea, but once again I see politics, rather than ethnicity in this. In that simplistic "eliminate and replace Balewa with Zik if he doesn't concede power" idea it's not so much about having an Igbo replace Balewa because of the rigging. Rather, it's about having "Dr" Nnamdi Azikiwe, Zik of Africa, replace Balewa. There is a difference.

Whether or not there was a "replace Balewa with Zik idea" in the air among the coupists, I have to say that with regard to your unstated, implicit conjecture about the significance of this event with regard to the January 1966 coup, I don't see how realizing that Zik had such limited powers would spur Zik or his Igbo supporters in the military to conspire to brutally murder the obstacles to his power (Balewa and co.) and think Zik or somebody more appealing to Igbos could somehow replace him while everybody else sat and watched quietly.

If this is not what you are saying then I should point out that the fact that the military was forced to stand by while a possibly rigged in government was ushered in with the army subservient to this government, while Zik's attempt to call for fresh, more valid elections instead of swearing in Balewa was ignored, is a purely political motivation for trying to get Balewa removed, not an ethnic empowerment motivation. If the consequence of Balewa's elimination and removal would be the empowerment of Zik, then that still does not demonstrate that the motivation for getting rid of Balewa was to empower Igbos. If the argument is that if the NPC and NNDP alliance had not existed (considering point # 3 that you raised) then they would not have attempted to eliminate Balewa and/or more greatly empower Zik, then I would have to point out that that is actually a conjecture or "what if".

If you're actually insinuating that Zik was some co-conspirator (which I don't believe that you even believe) then I would have to point out that this man ceded power twice - once in choosing not to govern an independent Eastern Nigeria in 1957, and again in choosing not to form a coalition with AG in which he was the one actually doing the governing. Then of course, there is Zik's historical romance with the north in order to "unite the country"  to consider. This blind enthrallment with the north even lead him to reach out to the north again in 1979. If he had a problem with the North in 1964/1965, and was chiefly interested in Igbo advancement/power, how do we explain his overtures to the north in 1979?

3. The union of NPC and Akintola's NNDP meant that more posts and appointments went to Yoruba sons at the expense of Ndigbo after the 1964 elections

In John de St. Jorre's book on the civil war it mentions that he interviewed certain Igbo intellectuals who admitted that they had already thought about Eastern secession before the 1966 crisis and before Ojukwu even came on the scene and a few had even drafted up proposals and that a very large contributing factor to this was the extremely heated tussle over the replacement of Igbo vice chancellors with non-Igbo vice chancellors in universities in the Western region.

I only mention this "random" fact in the same way you've mentioned your other facts to make a counter-insinuation to the insinuation and implicit conjecture about the motivations of the coup that underlie your posting of this fact. It might not be obvious to others so I should probably just state my counter explicitly: Isn't it glaringly obvious that if the Igbo political and military elite had an issue with the shift of power away from Igbos due to the political realignment that it would actually have been far more in line with their interests and more easily attainable and less risky to pursue secession rather than attempt a military takeover of the country using a thinly stretched squad of primarily Igbo soldiers and then attempt to sustain that takeover?

4. Zik was tipped off by his alleged cousin Ifeajuna, the real leader of the coup. Zik was in fact cooling off in the West indies while his colleagues were being slaughtered.

This is not actually a fact and not even a theory, until you can provide convincing evidence of the Ifeajuna -> Zik tip. (Not Emmanuel Nwobosi, unless he can provide any proof for his allegation. Nwobosi was not even in the same "sub-group" of coup plotters as Ifeajuna, by his own admission, so how would he know?). I also want to know who claimed Ifeajuna and Zik were cousins, I haven't been able to find the source (not Omoigui, but the source) of that claim.

5. After murdering Balewa and organising the murder of others, Ifeajuna ran to the East and the first place he went to was to Enugu to parley with Okpara (premier of the East, an Igbo man). I have been waiting for someone to explain this; perhaps you can. Please do not sidestep this point.

We can actually only conjecture about why Ifeajuna went to Okpara since both are not alive. You seem to be conjecturing about motivations or the significance of "parleying" with Okpara here without solid evidence. I can't recall Michael Okpara being held in any prison like Ademoyega and Ifeajuna after the first coup. I can't recall Okpara being detained or interrogated about the 1966 coup after the fall of Biafra or any other time afterward. I can't recall Michael Okpara being identified by the special branch report as being a possible suspect, coup ally, or mastermind. Perhaps you can explain this? If they wanted to pin somebody for being a key mastermind of a coup that was in line with UPGA interests, why not one of the most key people in UPGA? Yet nobody did. Not the coupists that confessed, not the federal government before or after the civil war. Nobody suggested any wrongdoing on his part, yet it would have been so easy to do so.

I also wonder why you don't mention that Fajuyi (military governor the West, Yoruba man) is known to have helped the coupists. What motivation would you read into that? A Yoruba + Igbo coup? Or would you here admit that even if Okpara was somehow involved (and there is still no evidence), it still could easily be a politically motivated coup, rather than an ethnically motivated coup?

I can take a crack at explaining it but you'll say it's all conjecture. Nevertheless, I think my view is reasonable enough.

Michael Okpara was UPGA. The coup was definitely in line with UPGA's interests, though there is no evidence that it was sponsored by UPGA. Ifeajuna went to Okpara for protection and/or advice now that he was a dead man after the coup had failed, thinking he would find a sympathizer in the man. Now was Okpara (doctor/politician) supposed to somehow arrest Ifeajuna (soldier) while Ifeajuna was there? Ifeajuna then left upon failing to get any protection or guarantees for his safety. It's that simple to me.

And once again, what you posted doesn't even prove or demonstrate an association or intent without an insinuation or conjecture ("parleying" with an ally, for instance) applied to it.

I have given you fact-supported motive as well as facts which support my position. Please don't come back with conjecture; I am not interested in what-ifs, supposing, if they wanted to, etc statements. If you can supply any new facts, I may be willing to change my position.


Something else that a lot of people miss. The coup had two very different objectives. The first objective as epitomised by Nzeogwu and Ademoyega was a noble one but this two (Nzeogwu and Ademoyega) were only recruited approximately 3 months to the coup. The second objective was an ethnic one and was camouflaged by the first objective. People naively or disingenuously use the first noble objective to excuse the brutal manner of the assassinations which betrays the second objective. Even Nzeogwu and Captain Nwobosisi acknowledge that there was an ethnic undertone with the execution of the coup in Lagos.

Nzeogwu's words are not to the effect that it was an Igbo coup but more in line with stating that those who bungled the coup in the south were sentimental and didn't have the ruthlessness to see their responsibilities through. Nzeogwu got into a heated argument with somebody who pointed out the ethnic pattern of the killings while the coup was still going on. He would not then go and state for no reason that it was a partially ethnically motivated coup later when he had blatantly said otherwise around the time of doing the actual killing.

Please tell me what Emmanuel Nwobosi said that could be interpreted as acknowledging that there was an ethnic undertone. I was under the impression that he said that Ifeajuna failed the other coupists.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

LWKMD

You can keep conjecturing; I will keep relating to the facts.

Katsumoto:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

LWKMD

You can keep conjecturing; I will keep relating to the facts.

Well the truth is that you are conjecturing.

Almost every single one of your facts are stated with an accompanying implicit conjecture about their significance, otherwise you would not bother to group these incidents together in the way you did. It's just strategic insinuation.

Without these implicit conjectures, that list does not have the import or implications of an Igbo coup.

[b] Aganga[/b](Katsumoto) should never open his mouth to Soludo(PhysicsMHD) again!

Chyz*:

[b] Aganga[/b](Katsumoto) should never open his mouth to Soludo(PhysicsMHD) again!

Quite understandably, the person who makes the most noise wins the argument in your village.

Katsumoto:

Quite understandably, the person who makes[b] the most noise[/b] SENSE wins the argument in your village.

Much better

PhysicsMHD:

Well the truth is that you are conjecturing.

Almost every single one of your facts are stated with an accompanying implicit conjecture about their significance, otherwise you would not bother to group these incidents together in the way you did. It's just strategic insinuation.

Without these implicit conjectures, that list does not have the import or implications of an Igbo coup.

Of course in the court of Law we must always really on the suspect to confess to his crime before he can be found guilty. We ignore all the evidence, statistical, analogical, and circumstantial.

You are quite right with the following
1. Only the non-Igbo members of government were corrupt. The Igbo members were saints
2. Ifeajuna went to have tea with Okpara after killing Balewa
3. Only Igbo officers were over-looked for promotion after 1962 in favour of the quota system. No Yoruba officers were overlooked. 
4. The election which brought Zik into the government with Balewa and which resulted in juicy appointments for Ndigbo was not rigged, it was only the election which resulted in less appointments for Ndigbo that was rigged
5. Secession which could have led to war was obviously easier than organising a coup. Of course we all know that the secession bid which followed in 67 was actually easier then the failed coup.
6. No one claimed Ifeajuna was Zik's cousin. Not even Ajuluchukwu who was Zik's right hand man said it. He only mentioned it in his dream
7. The Igbo republican nature was superior to the cultures in the North and as such a bloodbath of personnel from the North and West was the way to bring them in line since their cultures permitted them to be subservient to more senior members of their societies. But of course, British trained soldiers did not have the training to be sensitive to others whose ways were different from theirs.
8. The July 66 coup was also not ethnically motivated. It was pure coincidence that Murtala and co targeted those that they did.


I hope my sarcasm did not fly over anyone's head.


BTW, Your posts are rather too long and convoluted. Responding to them can be laborious and ignoring them may seem like one as acquiesced to your argument. Please keep them brief and to the point. This post is in response to the long one you posted above.

I am not going to go back and forth; we just have to agree to disagree, so I may not reply to another long post.

Katsumoto:

Of course in the court of Law we must always really on the suspect to confess to his crime before he can be found guilty. We ignore all the evidence, statistical, analogical, and circumstantial.

You are quite right with the following
1. Only the non-Igbo members of government were corrupt. The Igbo members were saints
2. Ifeajuna went to have tea with Okpara after killing Balewa
3. Only Igbo officers were over-looked for promotion after 1962 in favour of the quota system. No Yoruba officers were overlooked. 
4. The election which brought Zik into the government with Balewa and which resulted in juicy appointments for Ndigbo was not rigged, it was only the election which resulted in less appointments for Ndigbo that was rigged
5. Secession which could have led to war was obviously easier than organising a coup. Of course we all know that the secession bid which followed in 67 was actually easier then the failed coup.
6. No one claimed Ifeajuna was Zik's cousin. Not even Ajuluchukwu who was Zik's right hand man said it. He only mentioned it in his dream
7. The Igbo republican nature was superior to the cultures in the North and as such a bloodbath of personnel from the North and West was the way to bring them in line since their cultures permitted them to be subservient to more senior members of their societies. But of course, British trained soldiers did not have the training to be sensitive to others whose ways were different from theirs.
8. The July 66 coup was also not ethnically motivated. It was pure coincidence that Murtala and co targeted those that they did.


I hope my sarcasm did not fly over anyone's head.


BTW, Your posts are rather too long and convoluted. Responding to them can be laborious and ignoring them may seem like one as acquiesced to your argument. Please keep them brief and to the point. This post is in response to the long one you posted above.

I am not going to go back and forth; we just have to agree to disagree, so I may not reply to another long post. 

1. Didn't say that. Said they were low-priority which they would have to be from the political perspective of the coupists. How can you read the alleged grievances of the coup plotters and possibly think the Igbo politicians were not low priority?
2. Who knows what he did? I really want to see evidence of what he did there that implicates Okpara, when nobody ever implicated Okpara when it would have been so easy to if you were on the opposing side politically or ethnically (a Northerner). Is this information about Ifeajuna visiting Okpara only recently released (after Okpara's death)? Just a question.
3. Two-thirds of officer positions were going to Easterners without quota. I think we both know which ethnic group the majority of these Easterners belonged to. Upon the defiance of quota by Ironsi, the majority of promotions were going to Easterners who every objective commentator admits were highly qualified.
4. When the population figures (census) were rigged, both AG and the East protested (see Nwankwo and Ifejika's book). These population figures gave the North the advantage that ensured that they beat the AG. The NCNC had a wider appeal than the AG, from the 50s to that first election, so the NCNC outdid the AG. When the election that brought Zik and Balewa into government occurred, I don't recall Awolowo or anybody else protesting and claiming rigging, but I would gladly take correction on this.
5. I said that a thinly stretched squadron of soldiers is a difficult way to go about a successful takeover of the country, and lo and behold, they failed. Apparently these unnamed (only insinuated) Igbo masterminds are so clever as to be able to think up the coup but not smart enough to realize that they need a reasonable force to succeed in a coup. Please do not compare a secession bid made under duress while the military is fully in the hands of the North and with the whole country trying to keep the seceding element in the country to a few intellectuals trying to formally withdraw from the Nigerian state through peaceful means while Igbos are at some top positions in the military and politics and not under the threat of being overrun by a more militarily powerful neighbor. I never said secession would be so easy, but yes, easier than taking over a country for any significant amount of time without numerical superiority, powerful allies within the country and an adequate initial force.
6. I already asked for  the source of this claim and you gave me a link to Omoigui. If it was Ajuluchukwu that said it, you only had to provide the link (or a short part of the quote if from a book) or at least name who made the claim. I accept that he was his cousin now, but that doesn't significantly change anything because the tip itself remains an unproved allegation from a phantom source. We already know Ifeajuna was "sentimental" but the idea that Zik would knowingly sneak away and let his colleagues all get murdered while he left the country is a sufficiently weighty accusation that needs some actual evidence.
7. I am actually not some sort of proponent of the "Igbo republican nature was superior to others" argument nor a supporter of that view and I know you are purposely trivializing the  reasonable observation I made with regard to the excess of political soldiers among the Igbos and the poverty of such among other groups, but please don't turn my views into what they are not. I don't support the coup, and was quite surprised by the fact that so many Nigerians view these guys as heroes. I think it's wishful thinking. When I read in that Omoigui article how Balewa was leaning towards releasing Awolowo from prison and seeking a peaceful resolution of the Western crisis without excessive force, it only strengthened my belief in the coup as being the root of many of Nigeria's later problems.
8. Didn't say that. I've never stated anywhere that the July 1966 counter coup was not ethnically motivated.

Sorry about the post length previously, but some situations are sufficiently complex that they cannot be properly discussed only with neat little numbered lists.

it seems anything that goes against katsumoto's(in his mind) posts is conjecture.

Katsumoto:

Of course in the court of Law we must always really on the suspect to confess to his crime before he can be found guilty. We ignore all the evidence, statistical, analogical, and circumstantial.

You are quite right with the following
1. Only the non-Igbo members of government were corrupt. The Igbo members were saints
2. Ifeajuna went to have tea with Okpara after killing Balewa
3. Only Igbo officers were over-looked for promotion after 1962 in favour of the quota system. No Yoruba officers were overlooked. 
4. The election which brought Zik into the government with Balewa and which resulted in juicy appointments for Ndigbo was not rigged, it was only the election which resulted in less appointments for Ndigbo that was rigged
5. Secession which could have led to war was obviously easier than organising a coup. Of course we all know that the secession bid which followed in 67 was actually easier then the failed coup.
6. No one claimed Ifeajuna was Zik's cousin. Not even Ajuluchukwu who was Zik's right hand man said it. He only mentioned it in his dream
7. The Igbo republican nature was superior to the cultures in the North and as such a bloodbath of personnel from the North and West was the way to bring them in line since their cultures permitted them to be subservient to more senior members of their societies. But of course, British trained soldiers did not have the training to be sensitive to others whose ways were different from theirs.
8. The July 66 coup was also not ethnically motivated. It was pure coincidence that Murtala and co targeted those that they did.


I hope my sarcasm did not fly over anyone's head.


BTW, Your posts are rather too long and convoluted. Responding to them can be laborious and ignoring them may seem like one as acquiesced to your argument. Please keep them brief and to the point. This post is in response to the long one you posted above.

I am not going to go back and forth; we just have to agree to disagree, so I may not reply to another long post.

Katsumoto, This is lovely, especially the number eight point. You really analyzed the issue on this thread, and this last sarcastic post truly translates the chain of thought/argument which tries to "detribalize" the Jan 1966 coup.

Katsumoto,

You've given  logical and plausible points so far but your opponents have been straddling this thread, chucking watery,emotion laden arguments hence making  this thread less interesting.

GOOD JOB, YOU SOUND MORE GROUNDED.

PhysicsMHD:


I am actually not proving your point here.

Stop and think harder about it.

A simple hypothetical should illustrate my point:

You are 1 of 14 athletes in segregated late 1950s South Carolina and you and your fellow athletes want to compete in the national (U.S.), state-wide competition at your level (high school, college, professional, etc.) and 11 out of 14 are the best in the sport but the state government says it will only fund/sponsor a team which adheres to a racial quota where 6 out of the 12 positions are reserved for people of a different race from your own, regardless of their athletic ability.

(a) Now if these 14 athletes took illegal, violent, and barbaric steps to see that merit was adhered to would you say that they had a black power/latino power/asian power/native american power etc. racial agenda?

(b) Now what if the 14 athletes dressed up in fancy suits, filed eloquent formal complaints, filed lawsuits, peacefully protested and took other civil approaches to see that the racial quota that had been declared without consent or voting was overturned and a merit system was adhered to? Would you still claim they had a racial empowerment agenda? Or would you admit that they were arguing for what is right?

Absolutely nothing has changed between (a) and (b) except for the method. Do not side step the parallels between (b) and modern and recent attempts to correct improper practices and laws by ordinary people. It would be difficult or impossible to ascribe a racial/ethnic empowerment agenda to any and every group which is or almost is racially or ethnically homogeneous and which uses method (b) if the actual complaint has legitimacy. There is no fundamental difference between (a) and (b) except the approach, yet an ethnic agenda is being assigned to a group that used method (a) merely by arguing that the overwhelming majority Igbo makeup of the coupists definitively suggests an ethnic agenda, when one could not just assert that this is self-evident for all cases in which a group which takes either method (a) or (b) in a similar situation is composed overwhelmingly of one ethnic group.

Do note that there are only a few areas where a quota system can be justified, such as to make up for past discrimination with the hope of achieving equality, but can anyone name any past discrimination with regard to the 1950s - 1962 Nigerian military or the officer promotions therein?

With regard to Adekunle, Rotimi, etc., the Westerners and Midwesterners were not in the same position. Scroll down to page 100 of that google books link I posted in my previous post. You can clearly see where it states that prior to the 1962 quota system, two-thirds of officer positions had been going to Easterners. The author of that book is certainly not an Easterner.


Not at all a coincidence. Having a disproportionately higher number of military radicals and/or politicized soldiers (I think this is basically self-evident and I don't think it is at all a conjecture, but if you want, label it as such) in one ethnic group can give the false impression of a conspiratorial group. However having a higher proportion of political soldiers is not an amazing or unbelievable phenomenon when one also considers that there were also higher numbers of officer quality/material soldiers among Igbos with no fundamental explanation for that phenomenon besides culture. If you grow up in a culture where each man is his own sovereign and you bow to no one (not a detailed or precise representation of all Igbo societies, but a rough sketch) outside your own family isn't it plainly obvious that you'll have different political inclinations and responses to crises than someone from a culture where you pay obeisance to at least 8 different title holders and then to a king and never dare to go against their word?

Regardless of whether that is the case, if you want to go into the details, they have all been fleshed out before, but it wouldn't hurt to rehash what you already know.

a) All of those killed were seen as corrupt or morally compromised in some way, including Balewa, from a certain political (not ethnic, some AG Yorubas could have seen him the same way) perspective

b) The killings of the relatives of the targets or those that did not resist arrest were a result of the brutality of the coup (such as killing Akintola's nephew just for coming out of the house) and not merely for ethnic reasons.

c) The fact that the coup was already foiled by the time the "competent" or "honest" members (not Ifeajuna, for example) of the coup would have been able to kill the few lower priority Igbo targets that they had remaining out of their total hit list.





I believe I somewhat understand the insinuation that is being made here but correct me if I'm wrong. In the book Biafra: the Making of A Nation, the authors (Nwankwo and Ifejika), writing very much from that era and from an Igbo perspective, strangely present Balewa's response of "No" to the question of whether he would concede leadership of government to Zik as though there was actually something wrong or inappropriate or power hungry about Balewa's response to that strange question. So if the authors of that book, who were well educated, were biased enough to think that there was anything unjust or wrong or out of place in Balewa not conceding to Zik when Balewa had no obligation to do so if he felt he were indeed the (properly) elected prime minister, it's not hard to imagine that less intelligent and less educated individuals could distort this sort of biased sentiment into a much simpler "get rid of Balewa" idea, but once again I see politics, rather than ethnicity in this. In that simplistic "eliminate and replace Balewa with Zik if he doesn't concede power" idea it's not so much about having an Igbo replace Balewa because of the rigging. Rather, it's about having "Dr" Nnamdi Azikiwe, Zik of Africa, replace Balewa. There is a difference.

Whether or not there was a "replace Balewa with Zik idea" in the air among the coupists, I have to say that with regard to your unstated, implicit conjecture about the significance of this event with regard to the January 1966 coup, I don't see how realizing that Zik had such limited powers would spur Zik or his Igbo supporters in the military to conspire to brutally murder the obstacles to his power (Balewa and co.) and think Zik or somebody more appealing to Igbos could somehow replace him while everybody else sat and watched quietly.

If this is not what you are saying then I should point out that the fact that the military was forced to stand by while a possibly rigged in government was ushered in with the army subservient to this government, while Zik's attempt to call for fresh, more valid elections instead of swearing in Balewa was ignored, is a purely political motivation for trying to get Balewa removed, not an ethnic empowerment motivation. If the consequence of Balewa's elimination and removal would be the empowerment of Zik, then that still does not demonstrate that the motivation for getting rid of Balewa was to empower Igbos. If the argument is that if the NPC and NNDP alliance had not existed (considering point # 3 that you raised) then they would not have attempted to eliminate Balewa and/or more greatly empower Zik, then I would have to point out that that is actually a conjecture or "what if".

If you're actually insinuating that Zik was some co-conspirator (which I don't believe that you even believe) then I would have to point out that this man ceded power twice - once in choosing not to govern an independent Eastern Nigeria in 1957, and again in choosing not to form a coalition with AG in which he was the one actually doing the governing. Then of course, there is Zik's historical romance with the north in order to "unite the country" to consider. This blind enthrallment with the north even lead him to reach out to the north again in 1979. If he had a problem with the North in 1964/1965, and was chiefly interested in Igbo advancement/power, how do we explain his overtures to the north in 1979?


In John de St. Jorre's book on the civil war it mentions that he interviewed certain Igbo intellectuals who admitted that they had already thought about Eastern secession before the 1966 crisis and before Ojukwu even came on the scene and a few had even drafted up proposals and that a very large contributing factor to this was the extremely heated tussle over the replacement of Igbo vice chancellors with non-Igbo vice chancellors in universities in the Western region.

I only mention this "random" fact in the same way you've mentioned your other facts to make a counter-insinuation to the insinuation and implicit conjecture about the motivations of the coup that underlie your posting of this fact. It might not be obvious to others so I should probably just state my counter explicitly: Isn't it glaringly obvious that if the Igbo political and military elite had an issue with the shift of power away from Igbos due to the political realignment that it would actually have been far more in line with their interests and more easily attainable and less risky to pursue secession rather than attempt a military takeover of the country using a thinly stretched squad of primarily Igbo soldiers and then attempt to sustain that takeover?

This is not actually a fact and not even a theory, until you can provide convincing evidence of the Ifeajuna -> Zik tip. (Not Emmanuel Nwobosi, unless he can provide any proof for his allegation. Nwobosi was not even in the same "sub-group" of coup plotters as Ifeajuna, by his own admission, so how would he know?). I also want to know who claimed Ifeajuna and Zik were cousins, I haven't been able to find the source (not Omoigui, but the source) of that claim.


We can actually only conjecture about why Ifeajuna went to Okpara since both are not alive. You seem to be conjecturing about motivations or the significance of "parleying" with Okpara here without solid evidence. I can't recall Michael Okpara being held in any prison like Ademoyega and Ifeajuna after the first coup. I can't recall Okpara being detained or interrogated about the 1966 coup after the fall of Biafra or any other time afterward. I can't recall Michael Okpara being identified by the special branch report as being a possible suspect, coup ally, or mastermind. Perhaps you can explain this? If they wanted to pin somebody for being a key mastermind of a coup that was in line with UPGA interests, why not one of the most key people in UPGA? Yet nobody did. Not the coupists that confessed, not the federal government before or after the civil war. Nobody suggested any wrongdoing on his part, yet it would have been so easy to do so.

I also wonder why you don't mention that Fajuyi (military governor the West, Yoruba man) is known to have helped the coupists. What motivation would you read into that? A Yoruba + Igbo coup? Or would you here admit that even if Okpara was somehow involved (and there is still no evidence), it still could easily be a politically motivated coup, rather than an ethnically motivated coup?

I can take a crack at explaining it but you'll say it's all conjecture. Nevertheless, I think my view is reasonable enough.

Michael Okpara was UPGA. The coup was definitely in line with UPGA's interests, though there is no evidence that it was sponsored by UPGA. Ifeajuna went to Okpara for protection and/or advice now that he was a dead man after the coup had failed, thinking he would find a sympathizer in the man. Now was Okpara (doctor/politician) supposed to somehow arrest Ifeajuna (soldier) while Ifeajuna was there? Ifeajuna then left upon failing to get any protection or guarantees for his safety. It's that simple to me.

And once again, what you posted doesn't even prove or demonstrate an association or intent without an insinuation or conjecture ("parleying" with an ally, for instance) applied to it.


Nzeogwu's words are not to the effect that it was an Igbo coup but more in line with stating that those who bungled the coup in the south were sentimental and didn't have the ruthlessness to see their responsibilities through. Nzeogwu got into a heated argument with somebody who pointed out the ethnic pattern of the killings while the coup was still going on. He would not then go and state for no reason that it was a partially ethnically motivated coup later when he had blatantly said otherwise around the time of doing the actual killing.

Please tell me what Emmanuel Nwobosi said that could be interpreted as acknowledging that there was an ethnic undertone. I was under the impression that he said that Ifeajuna failed the other coupists.

Your posts are always very long and I wonder where you get the energy ; but every point is always well thought of. That was very brilliant and very well articulated. Personally, I shy away from topics that are likely to take my time.

Abagworo:
I understand Aguiyi for ending true Federalism.It was to appease the North who later killed him.The Igbos and South-South were highly advantaged with Nigeria's new found oil wealth in the East and Midwest but Ironsi chose to reduce that advantage so as to prove that Igbos wanted Nigeria to remain one.

Absolutely wrong. Ironsi did it for selfish reasons- for absolute control by him and his ilks. When the news of decree no. 1 of 1966 broke, its celebration was limited only to the east, led by Ojukwu. Dont try to justify what requires no justification.

Beaf:


With due respect, the bolded is an immensely stupeed comment. True federalism requires several fundamental constitutional, societal, fiscal and organisational changes.

You think the President can simply get a copy of the constitution, cross out some lines, alter others, add a few fresh ones, then sign it? Are you living on the Moon?

Sometimes I wonder why some folk pretend to know things they so obviously don't. Dude, you don't know the meaning of true federalism, so please keep shut.

@topic
Yes, Ironsi did us bad and those that followed saw his actions as the greatest gift through which they could enslave and brutalise the nation.

Correct. Ironsi was the villain who laid the foundation for southern slavery due to inordinate ambition.

yarodin:
But seeing the irony of what Ironsi was killed for is so funny.  They kill Ironsi because the thought he was reserving total power for all Igbos and that we will start dipping into the profits of their ground pyramids.  But once they got back power and the oil boom was just around the corner, they immediately adopted the same policy they so hated.  

A wise man who died in the backyard of a foolish man, e get as e bi - Fela Anikulapo Kuti.
That is the way the cookie crumbles.