victorazy:


I believe your referring to Awolowo "The otapiapia man"

He is talking about the pedophile Ojukwu of cursed memory, who ran to Abidjan dressed like a local wh/ore while FFK pummel his wife.

Gangster1ms:

Tribalism is deep inside ur blood.. u will die soon. All ur topics reeks of hatred for the igbos.. same with with ur posts. R.I.P in advance.

Typical flat head, you ignored the daily hate post of your brothers but crying over that guys post. Shameless hypocrite.

Electricdanger:


Typical flat head, you ignored the daily hate post of your brothers but crying over that guys post. Shameless hypocrite.

Goan sit down boy!

NaijaMutant:
The only Yoruba who fought and died for a worthy cause

Unlike his brother who was released from Calabar prison to fight the same cause but chickened out when he was promised the VP position by those who earlier imprisoned him.


Col. Victor Banjo a beloved Biafran soldier continue to rest in peace.

Didn't the same Biafra kill him?

humilitypays:
Read this>>>https://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/04/intelligence-failed-nzeogwu/amp/

You sound informed but you have this tribal sentiment in your undertone.

1966 coup was never an Igbo agenda as acclaimed by Southwest history rewriters.

Read the article on that link I posted above, names of some of the coupists are mentioned therein.

Nobody said Awolowo had any interest in Southeast or then Eastern region, what we are saying is that after he joined Nigerian side in the civil war, he masterminded lots of plans to end the war in favour of Nigerian government which nobody can blame him of.

Yes in war, commanders make mistake and miscalculation, the great Adolf Hitler who almost captured the world also made a mistake of miscalculation, yet, Adolf Hitler remains a known warrior in the history of mankind, same applies to Ojukwu, both of them held a larger part of the world in a long battle to the surprise of war historians and military analysts.

Major point is and remains, the 1966 Major Nzeogwu led coup was never an Igbo agenda and it was executed by Nigerian soldiers drawn from Igbo, Yoruba, Urhobo, Efik, Bini, and even Middlebelt, including Abacha.

They coup would have been a success if not for Igbo military officers that stopped Nzeogwu, they are:

1. Maj. General Ironsi
2. Col. Ojukwu
3. Conrad Chukwujimje Dibia Nwawo (NA 10),
4. Alexander Attah Madiebo
5. Major Alphonso Keshi.

These officers stopped the Nzeogwu coup and they are all Igbo military officers so where is the Igbo agenda here


How did they foil the 1966 coup

Brigade Major, 2 BDE Kaduna, Keshi informed Madiebo of the coup. Madiebo moved over to the Brigade Headquarters where Nzeogwu had taken over Ademulegun’s seat and worked on Nzeogwu. Ojukwu, Commanding Officer Third Battalion, Kano stood his ground strategically and all worked with Ironsi to fly in Nwawo, then Defence Attaché in London, and Nzeogwu’s teacher. Only then could Major Nzeogwu's heart be softened.

All the none Igbo military officers were so scared of Nzeogwu, no none Igbo officer was bold enough to challenge Nzeogwu.

Major Hassan Usman Katsina, Inspector of the Recce Squadron in Kaduna was confused. Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon ‘ s contribution from Lagos was for Madiebo to ask the doctor to sedate Nzeogwu, a man who was in full control of Kaduna.

The man that should have made a broadcast after the January coup was Ademoyega, a Yoruba. Their plan was to release Chief Obafemi Awolowo, another Yoruba from jail and make him Prime Minister.


The Army Chief would have been Lt. Col David Akpode Ejoor, an Urhobo. The young officer who secured radio Nigeria was Capt. Gibson Sanda Jalo.

Among those who took part in Exercise Damissa were subalterns like John Atom Kpera, Harris Eghagha, Sani Abacha, Bob Egbikor, Fola Oyewole and Olafimihan.

Of the 28 officers and men that followed Nzeogwu to the Sardauna’s house, 22 were non Igbo. Yoruba officers like Victor Adebukunola Banjo,Fajuyi, Olusegun Obasanjo and Oluchi Olutoye knew about the coup.

Nzeogwu did not believe in Biafra , was named Kaduna by his Northern friends and spoke Hausa more than Igbo.

See the below quote:

Hmmm... I'll have loved to point out one or two things for you man, probably asked for empirical proofs... but then, I don't have that time for now, plus we've discussed this coup issue (and some others like it) at length on this forum. I don't know if the hacking of yesteryears spared them.

Briefly to some of your points...

Prior to independence and not long after the colonials left, the cold war between the North and the East was only a matter of ticking bomb... hence the infamous Sardauna speech abt the Easterners wanting to/taking up everything for themselves only and his hypothesis of Igbos being overtly over-ambitious. The interview was conducted by a white man who also realised the marriage was having issues already... The look on Sardaunas face also speaks volume about what is bottled up in his mind.
But then the Northerns were cautious and diplomatic.....

That coup was uncalled for.
The whole country was just as we have it now... Corruption, impunity....name it. But then, It was not in the place of some overzealous barrack boys (who unfortunately are majorly of a tribe that was as at then controversial) to resolve something everyone else was carefully and tactically watching how it would play out... The colonials were also aware of the whole intrigues.

The Eastern version/excuse abt the coup is that it was all about Awolowo (who as at then was aggrieved) Awolowo never asked for such. Ask yourself ....What would have those boys done if Awolowo declined after that coup? How did they think Awolowo would calm all nerves, knowing well that Awolowo himself was aggrieved and Zik was at then the tall bride? How did they think Awolowo would rule ? By owing some gun thirsty boys a huge favour? It would have worsened things

Man, the coup was all about some Eastern young boys in close proximity to power drawing the first blood (being too cocky and zealous... the same things the North despised abt them then). That's the truth.

The major targets were Northern and Western elites...how gracious can concidence and luck-chance be to the Eastern leaders. A coup void of tribal sentiments would have taken at least one Eastern elite....Ofcourse the North got the message, (Ironsi made things seem more as though it was nothing bad) and it was obvious when they came after Ironsi and others in the counter-coup.

All stories about a few Yorubas being involved is just to save face. Some of the Yorubas knew either too little or too late abt the whole thing.
K. Nzeogwu's interview after Ironsi came to power doesn't seem like he had Awolowo nor Nigeria in mind for the coup. His confidence was like someone who is happy abt the turn of events (Ironsi coming to power and doing nothing abt the plotters)

I repeat, if the coup was abt Awolowo, the sequence and dynamics of the coup would have led to a different story entirely.

There are many accounts, theories and conspiracies about who did what before during and after the war... Some will even accuse Britain.... but the facts are that some boys majorly of a tribe killed leaders from other tribes for reasons best known to them, at a time when every other tribes were nervy, wary yet careful.

cdoffx:

History as I know has at least two Yoruba men who paid the ultimate price to stand by Ibo men to the last end.
1. Adekunle Fajuyi: the military administrator of western region who would not release his guest Aguyi Ironsi, the head of state to the Northern soldiers carrying out the counter coup except they go down together. They were both killed since he won't hand in over freely.
2. Colonel Banjo you just read about.
Could you please name an Ibo man who had performed the same feat. Shun tribalism please, it takes us nowhere.

The same way Fayose and Fani kayode stood by Nnamdi kanu to ensure he was released.

Firstpage:


Agreed with who? You kids should use your brain or ask questions before displaying your ignorance on a public forum.

Awolowo told Gowon that if Biafra is agreed to go, Oduduwa would also go. That's a conditional statement if you ever went to school.

Wrong. If you read Awo's statement, he said the west would seceed if, FOR ANY REASON, the east was not persuaded to stay part of Nigeria. This was a public pronouncement. U can easily Google it.

Wristler:

Hmmm... I'll have loved to point out one or two things for you man, probably asked for empirical proofs... but then, I don't have that time for now, plus we've discussed this coup issue (and some others like it) at length on this forum. I don't know if the hacking of yesteryears spared them.

Briefly to some of your points...

Prior to independence and not long after the colonials left, the cold war between the North and the East was only a matter of ticking bomb... hence the infamous Sardauna speech abt the Easterners wanting to/taking up everything for themselves only and his hypothesis of Igbos being overtly over-ambitious. The interview was conducted by a white man who also realised the marriage was having issues already... The look on Sardaunas face also speaks volume about what is bottled up in his mind.
But then the Northerns were cautious and diplomatic.....

That coup was uncalled for.
The whole country was just as we have it now... Corruption, impunity....name it. But then, It was not in the place of some overzealous barrack boys (who unfortunately are majorly of a tribe that was as at then controversial) to resolve something everyone else was carefully and tactically watching how it would play out... The colonials were also aware of the whole intrigues.

The Eastern version/excuse abt the coup is that it was all about Awolowo (who as at then was aggrieved) Awolowo never asked for such. Ask yourself ....What would have those boys done if Awolowo declined after that coup? How did they think Awolowo would calm all nerves, knowing well that Awolowo himself was aggrieved and Zik was at then the tall bride? How did they think Awolowo would rule ? By owing some gun thirsty boys a huge favour? It would have worsened things

Man, the coup was all about some Eastern young boys in close proximity to power drawing the first blood (being too cocky and zealous... the same things the North despised abt them then). That's the truth.

The major targets were Northern and Western elites...how gracious can concidence and luck-chance be to the Eastern leaders. A coup void of tribal sentiments would have taken at least one Eastern elite....Ofcourse the North got the message, (Ironsi made things seem more as though it was nothing bad) and it was obvious when they came after Ironsi and others in the counter-coup.

All stories about a few Yorubas being involved is just to save face. Some of the Yorubas knew either too little or too late abt the whole thing.
K. Nzeogwu's interview after Ironsi came to power doesn't seem like he had Awolowo nor Nigeria in mind for the coup. His confidence was like someone who is happy abt the turn of events (Ironsi coming to power and doing nothing abt the plotters)

I repeat, if the coup was abt Awolowo, the sequence and dynamics of the coup would have led to a different story entirely.

There are many accounts, theories and conspiracies about who did what before during and after the war... Some will even accuse Britain.... but the facts are that some boys majorly of a tribe killed leaders from other tribes for reasons best known to them, at a time when every other tribes were nervy, wary yet careful.

Have u considered that these were young men who didn't have things thought out. Everything was fuzzy with no clear agenda.

ameri9ja:


Wrong. If you read Awo's statement, he said the west would seceed if, FOR ANY REASON, the east was not persuaded to stay part of Nigeria. This was a public pronouncement. U can easily Google it.

And what does that mean?

has the east seceded while the west remained in Nigeria?

humilitypays:
Ojukwu did not declare war on Nigeria, please read Nigerian Civil war history books written by foreign journalists so it won't be biased okay? Ojukwu declared Biafra as an independent state after Gowon failed to implement their agreement at Aburi Ghana, but this is not the primary cause of the civil war....this is just the secondary cause....what led to the disagreement and going to Aburi Accord is the 1966 Pogrom. Without the 1966 northern pogrom, there won't have been civil war in 1966/67.

If you look at the event of things happening in Nigeria now, the Fulani are kind of repeating what happened in 1966/67 that led to the civil war.

These incessant killing of unarmed civilians for no justifiable reason by Fulani herdsmen just because their brother is the president can lead to civil war if we had courageous and brave military men from the victimized regions of Benue, Taraba, and even Southeast....history is trying to repeat itself in Nigeria and nobody is trying to warn President Buhari to send a strong warning message to his Fulani brothers but he remained silent and indifferent just as Gowon did in 1966!

Nigerians think!

Yes, I know of Aburi reconciliation pannel in Ghana, I also know Ojukwu declared Republic of Biafra cos General Gowon didn't implement the agreement reached at Aburi.

Joe Igbokwe, the Igbo's sacrificial goat to BAT
History as I know has at least two Yoruba men who paid the ultimate price to stand by Ibo men to the last end.
1. Adekunle Fajuyi: the military administrator of western region who would not release his guest Aguyi Ironsi, the head of state to the Northern soldiers carrying out the counter coup except they go down together. They were both killed since he won't hand in over freely.
2. Colonel Banjo you just read about.
Could you please name an Ibo man who had performed the same feat. Shun tribalism please, it takes us nowhere. [/quote]

Firstpage:


And what does that mean?

has the east seceded while the west remained in Nigeria?

That Awo's speech has been much misinterpreted and even misquoted. Since the speech is not that long, I am posting the entire speech here. If u read it carefully you have to admit that Awo's position subsequently dramatically changed. Basically he said two things here:

1) IF BIAFRA IS ALLOWED TO SECEDE THE WEST WOULD ALSO SECEDE
2)(And probably more important) 
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THE FEDERAL GOV'T USE FORCE TO KEEP BIAFRA FROM SECEDING

Here is the speech in it's ENTIRETY.
(NOTE THE BOLDED):


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————–

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

ameri9ja:


That Awo's speech has been much misinterpreted and even misquoted. Since the speech is not that long, I am posting the entire speech here. If u read it carefully you have to admit that Awo's position subsequently dramatically changed. Basically he said two things here:

1) IF BIAFRA IS ALLOWED TO SECEDE THE WEST WOULD ALSO SECEDE
2)(And probably more important) 
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD THE FEDERAL GOV'T USE FORCE TO KEEP BIAFRA FROM SECEDING

Here is the speech in it's ENTIRETY.
(NOTE THE BOLDED):


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——————–

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

Thanks for bringing up the speech. However, I don't see how his position "changed dramatically" as you put it.

Bear in mind that this speech was made in 1967 and the west did not enter into the war until later. Now put your sentiments aside and ask yourself why his position changed.

Alariiwo:
I believe Victor Banjo was a victim of circumstance.. Ojukwu used him cos he was in an Eastern prison at that time.

What if he wasn't there? Biafra would have fallen even before the start of the war.

This should teach other Yorubas forming detribalized a lesson.

Aguyi Ironsi after a successful Igbo planned coup detained an innocent Yoruba man Victor Banjo (most likely cos he wasn't in support of their coup) but left others like Nzeogwu, the real killers alone.

The same Yoruba man was used by the Igbos to prosecute a war only to kill him later after Ojukwu felt threatened and probably got jealous of the fearless Yoruba warrior.


Thank God for gallant Yoruba soldiers like Benjamin Adekunle (may your rugged soul rest in perfect peace), Obasanjo and the others that stopped invading biafran soldiers at Ore.
They saved the Yoruba race from slavery to Igbos.

Only bastards from Yorubaland will champion any biafra course again, not with the level of division and hate the Easterners display towards other Nigerians.

Let us reason together. Wh was it that all the officers who took part in the january 1966 coup fought on the Biafran side?

Firstpage:


Thanks for bringing up the speech. However, I don't see how his position "changed dramatically" as you put it.

Bear in mind that this speech was made in 1967 and the west did not enter into the war until later. Now put your sentiments aside and ask yourself why his position changed.

What do ou mean by the highlighted? Did the west have a separate army? Was the west a different country.

PFRB:


What do ou mean by the highlighted? Did the west have a separate army? Was the west a different country.

What I mean is the war was between the east and north until the biafran troops shifted their attention to the west.

Firstpage:


What I mean is the war was between the east and north until the biafran troops shifted their attention to the west.

Was west another country?

PFRB:



Was west another country?

Are we gonna stuck here?

T9ksy:


Thanks for bringing up the speech. However, I don't see how his position "changed dramatically" as you put it.

Bear in mind that this speech was made in 1967 and the west did not enter into the war until later. Now put your sentiments aside and ask yourself why his position changed.

Comon, it's not rocket science now, was it ?

When Awo noticed Ojukwu's rag-tag soldiers heading for yorubaland after having already over run the mid-west region and foisted a fellow Igbo on the locals. It was obvious what fate ojukwu had in mind for his so-called yoruba "brothers"

Not to mention how ojukwu dropped bombs on yorubaland killing innocent yorubas whilst looking for hausa/fulanis to avenge on.

The guy knows this but kept asking me the same question.

ELKHALIFAISIS:
piglet abeg gerrout of here

You are one of those admins who edit other peoples post. I have never used the word slowpoke on anyone. I don't even know the meaning.

Such kind of action is called FRAUD!

MonPro:
He was fingered as part of the Jan 15 coup plotters with his marxist ideology. Abokiis wanted his head on a plate, he ran to the East, the East took him as their own, protected him and fed him.

The East came under attack for protecting him and his comrades, a war was declared against the East, all men and young adults took up arms to defend the East. Banjo and Ifeajuna were commissioned to help dislodge the Abookis who had overrun yorubaland and were throwing bomb into Biafra using yorubaland (which should be neutral) as command and control centre since he himself was yoruba and will not be seen as an agressor. Ojukwu ordered that they modified the Biafran badge too in order to respect the soverignty of those whose lands they passed through enroute to lagos where bombs were being thrown into Biafra.

Awolowo the yoruba leader was playing double agent, pro-East in the day, pro-Abooki at night. His assurances lacked principles, his words were like smokes, they held no water and evaporated immediately the words came out of his mouth.

Banjo and Ifeajuna got to Ore where Awo (now a stooge of the abookis) met them, made a deal and assure them of their safety if they bring Ojukwu's head on a plate to abookis..Sacrilege!
They made a U-turn back to the East. The rest is history.

Ah. Finally, someone came to the rescue.

Thanks bro. Saved me valuable time I would have used to type that.

Marcelini:


Ah. Finally, someone came to the rescue.

Thanks bro. Saved me valuable time I would have used to type that.

You can see level of intellectual criminality of the yorubas on this forum trying to spin lies and present them as factoids for us to swallow. When we prevent them from sustaining their age-long lies they lament and call us 'haters'.

The yorubas are condemned and cursed with so much dishonesty that you wonder the kind of human specie they represent.

Bare-faced lies, revisionism, propaganda, intellectual dishonesty, et al. are some of their trademarks.

Do we still wonder why the infamous Lai (lie) Mohammed is from their neck of the wood and of yoruba stock?

Unfortunately for them since the days of internet and social media, the yorubas have been frustrated that Igbos who are the smartest, well travelled and most enlightened (according to national statistics) do not allow their lies to fester any longer. All their lies have been countered, all their myths bursted.

They have much more frustrations to suffer if they think they'll be allowed to peddle their lies in this information age.

Marcelini:


Ah. Finally, someone came to the rescue.

Thanks bro. Saved me valuable time I would have used to type that.

Were there no Yoruba soldiers in the attack against Biafra?

T.Y Danjuma who lead the siege on govt house Ibadan has said that Fajuyi never defended Ironsi or opted to die with him.

PFRB:
T.Y Danjuma who lead the siege on govt house Ibadan has said that Fajuyi never defended Ironsi or opted to die with him.

That's another agelong yoruba 'Fajuyi wanted to die with Ironsi' myth and propaganda that gave been bursted severally.