₦airaland Forum

Dalohad:
Jamiu, Zik argued against it, he was not the final arbiter or decider, the Brits were.

Go school, you say na Ile-Kewu you go do.

smileyoo:
Indeed Mr Azikiwe contributed in placing us in this bondage like contraption called Nigeria because of his fanatical yet unrealistic believe in Nigerian unity as a nationalist, but 6 decades counting, his vision of Nigerian unity is still a mirage, proving chief Awolowo vindicated as a realist and a visionary leader.
even during the Biafra / Nigeria civil war, Mr Azikiwe was still sadly deluded by his personal conviction of the imaginary Nigeria unity, to the extent that he rigidly refused to lend any support to the Biafra struggle and the yearnings of our people, i wish he was still alive to see the precarious situation, that his illusion of imaginary national unity had placed upon the victimized citizens of Nigeria.
Indeed Awolowo was the best president that Nigeria never had.

coolitempa:
Just two years ago when Obi came on the scene, you were dying to push for one Nigeria.

gidgiddy:
This is another classic example of why the Nigerian, and indeed Africans, are backward

The white man comes from Europe, uses superior firepower to overrun your ancestors, bamboozled them all into a British colonial project called "Nigeria"

But long after the white man has gone back home, you are still killing your selves to preserve the country he created. You answer a name "Nigerian" that a white woman created in London as your national identity

When someone like Ojukwu, an indigenous son of the soil, wants to create a country, you fight war, kill your selves in the millions, just to uphold a country created by the white man

But there is nothing you as a black African will ever create that Will make the white man kill his white brother

An enforced illegal colonial contraption that the white man shed the blood of your ancestors to create, is what you now shed the blood of your African brother to uphold. This is what you call treason and terrorism.

Terrible

kedeojo:
Don't mind them. Early last year when they had the false hope of Obi presidency, they forgot about Biafra but after loss, they now want to seceed. Let pdp just announced of zoning their ticket to south east 2027, they will abandoned Biafra struggles.

Christlike01:
The ibos just don't have an iota of the enormity of the damage they have caused, and still causing, themselves in Nigeria. They are in for a very long time of agony and teeth gnashing! The truth is that even if a litre of petrol becomes N5,000.00,northerners will never support Igbo presidency! The Ibos always think they're smarter than everyone around them,but the truth is that they're the most foolish!

jogojogo:
Zik only opposed Awolowo because that's how the typical Ibo was wired to always oppose anything good or bad the Yoruba stands for.

AlexBells:
Zik was a statesman.

Armaggedon:
Zik stood for regionalism and federalism with financial and legislative autonomy where the regions developed in their own pace. No contradictions.

One of the most confusing figures in Nigeria's history was Awolowo. He claimed he wanted secession and zik rejected. But when the opportunity presented itself during Biafra, the same Awolowo made a complete U-turn and and started fighting for a unitary one Nigeria as championed by gowon. His attitude justified Zik's opinions about him.

For those who claim his demand was in good faith, his demand was rediculous and he knew it. He was neither here no there. There is no sovereign state in the world that has secession in it's constitution. If he truly wanted his region to be alone he should have demanded a pre-independence referendum like southern Cameroon or pre-independence partitioning as in British India. Opting for a secession clause instead of pre-independence referendum clearly indicated lack of commitment to specific ideology from Awolowo. You can't officially keep one leg in the country and keeping one outside. A snake he was.

JAMO84:
So as at the time Ojukwu was trying to remove Biafra from Nigeria, he was commiting treason and actually deserved to be shot dead at bar Beach.


Azikwe made sure Nigeria is indivisible, but his children are crying all over social media today, telling ordinary citizens like me to let them go, as if I used rope to tie them.

BlowYourMind:
If zik was wise and had foresight, he would have opposed the removal of secession, but he is blind to the future, he want to be premier in the south west.

yommen:
You are still as dull as your Azikiwe. You are blaming Awolowo for the crimes of Azikiwe, the greedy Igbo man. Awo supported seccesion but Zik opposed it. Zik even further recommended the talk of seccesion to be a treason. Treasonable offences are punishable by death in Nigerian law. This means that anyone who would want to secceede will be killed. You people made the law through Zik and you still blaming Awolowo for attempting punish you because you broke the law you made yourself. Are you this daft?

oyatz:
You don't have understanding of the subject.
Awolowo and the Acton Group (and indeed several other stakeholders) at the constitutional conference were unsure of the future of a new country put together by the British Colonislism and suggested a secession clause in the constitution to give guidelines and procedures for peaceful withdrawal from the Federation.

This was totally different from the civil war.
Awolowo was aversed to the civil war which was NOT about peaceful withdrawal from the Federation under any laid down rules (which a secession clause in the constitution would have achieved).

Armaggedon:
Zik stood for regionalism and federalism with financial and legislative autonomy where the regions developed in their own pace. No contradictions.

One of the most confusing figures in Nigeria's history was Awolowo. He claimed he wanted secession and zik rejected. But when the opportunity presented itself during Biafra, the same Awolowo made a complete U-turn and and started fighting for a unitary one Nigeria as championed by gowon. His attitude justified Zik's opinions about him.

For those who claim his demand was in good faith, his demand was rediculous and he knew it. He was neither here no there. There is no sovereign state in the world that has secession in it's constitution. If he truly wanted his region to be alone he should have demanded a pre-independence referendum like southern Cameroon or pre-independence partitioning as in British India. Opting for a secession clause instead of pre-independence referendum clearly indicated lack of commitment to specific ideology from Awolowo. You can't officially keep one leg in the country and keeping one outside. A snake he was.

AlexBells:
The thing I don’t fancy about you is that you always talk without considering timing. In 1954, what value will Zik stand on to support secession when the bone of contention was independence. Zik was a great guy. Awo was being delusional. Yes today Nigeria seems chaotic but that wasn’t the case in 1954. In fact the North opposed independence but Awo was proposing secession which could have plunged the young country into chaos of course at the end it did, Zik has long been vindicated.

Armaggedon:
Zik stood for regionalism and federalism with financial and legislative autonomy where the regions developed in their own pace. No contradictions.

One of the most confusing figures in Nigeria's history was Awolowo. He claimed he wanted secession and zik rejected. But when the opportunity presented itself during Biafra, the same Awolowo made a complete U-turn and and started fighting for a unitary one Nigeria as championed by gowon. His attitude justified Zik's opinions about him.

For those who claim his demand was in good faith, his demand was rediculous and he knew it. He was neither here no there. There is no sovereign state in the world that has secession in it's constitution. If he truly wanted his region to be alone he should have demanded a pre-independence referendum like southern Cameroon or pre-independence partitioning as in British India. Opting for a secession clause instead of pre-independence referendum clearly indicated lack of commitment to specific ideology from Awolowo. You can't officially keep one leg in the country and keeping one outside. A snake he was.

JAMO84:
So as at the time Ojukwu was trying to remove Biafra from Nigeria, he was commiting treason and actually deserved to be shot dead at bar Beach.


Azikwe made sure Nigeria is indivisible, but his children are crying all over social media today, telling ordinary citizens like me to let them go, as if I used rope to tie them.

JAMO84:
So which of your legislators has moved the motion or submitted a bill to the effect of changing the Constitution to let Biafra go?

You blame everyone for your own misery except your leaders. You want Biafra but it's others that must help you get it, you can't do it yourself.

chinchum:
could it be that you don't have the intelligence to correctly analyse the circumstances surrounding the wish of Awolowo or you are deliberately twisting facts?

Awolowo was not asking for succession, but that a succession clause be added to the constitution. What that would have guaranteed is providing a legal framework for any part of the country to make a case if they strongly want to leave Nigeria. In other words, it could have been enshrined in the constitution how succession can be actualized, possibly through a referendum of the people.
It is treason for anyone to simply declare succession, which is what Ojukwu did.
Awolowo was the greatest visionary Nigeria ever had.

ElSudani:
Zik was not very smart.

TimeManager:
But Zik disagreed while Awo felt we shouldn't be forced together. Zik wanted the pan-Africanism, entrenched the Zikist movement with the ideology that God created the ibos to dominate Africa. And that's why the kids shouting Biafra today thought Nigeria started in 1966 or 2015. The Zikists are solely responsible for their self inflicted woes that blight them till date.

-Kiss the truth!

seanfer:
Who opposed the inclusion of secession in our constitution? NNAMDI AZIKIWE. Without him opposing it, we won't be where we are today and the civil war pf 1967 would have been avoidable.

Uchek:
Ojukwu didn’t pull East out under a democratic and constitutional-based government. He pulled the East out under an illegitimate and illegal military dictatorship that governed by decrees m. My Q:

So under what constitution was Ojukwu’s action illegal?