So, Nigeria and Biafra agitators can no longer tolerate each other?


The only way to deal with an un­free world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
- Albert Camus
It was a thinker, Rick Warren, who said; “A lie doesn’t be­come truth, wrong doesn’t become right and evil doesn’t become good, just because it’s ac­cepted by majority”. Nigeria is a classic example of a nation living a lie and thriving on lies. It is a nation where the few elites have succeeded in appropriating all re­sources and left both the nation and millions of citizens desolate, desperately poor, angry and frus­trated, resulting in various forms of resistance. You find such civil disobedience in increased kid­nappings, ritual killings, violent crimes, and ultimately in the mili­tancy, insurgency and terrorism found in all regions of the country.

The Nigerian situation once again calls to mind the issue of why nations fail. In their book, “Why Nations Fail”, Daron Ac­emoglu and James Robinson irref­utably show that it is man-made political and economic institu­tions that underlie economic suc­cess; and that it is the inability of leadership to produce happiness through sustainable development and inclusive governance that pushes nations towards splinter­ing and ultimately, disintegrations and death.
Based on fifteen years of origi­nal research, Acemoglu and Rob­inson marshal extraordinary his­torical evidence from the Roman Empire, the Mayan city-states, medieval Venice, the Soviet Un­ion, Latin America, England, Eu­rope, the United States, and Africa to build a new theory of political economy with great relevance for the big questions of nationhood today.



Some germane questions aris­ing from their reconstructions that can help unravel where Nigeria is getting it wrong and point to the way to go are: how come China, with a population about ten times that of Nigeria, has continued to grow at such high speed and overwhelming the West? What is the most effective way to help move billions of people from the rut of poverty to prosperity? Is it through more philanthropy from the wealthy nations of the West or learning the hard lessons of Acemoglu and Robinson’s break­through ideas on the interplay between inclusive governance and workable political and economic institutions?
Korea, to take just one mes­merizing example, is a remark­ably homogeneous nation, yet the North Korea are among the poor­est of nations while South Korea among the richest. Reason? The south forged a society that cre­ated inclusive governance, incen­tives, rewarded innovation, and allowed everyone to participate in economic development. This is not happening in Nigeria. The economic success thus spurred was sustained because the govern­ment became accountable and re­sponsive to citizens and the great mass of their people. Conversely, much like Nigeria, the people of the north have endured decades of gripping poverty, political repres­sion, and very different economic institutions.
The situation of our country is truly dire but salvageable if the leadership can rise to the occa­sion and do the right things and abandon the policy of repression and pursue inclusivity. Repress­ing Boko Haram insurgents has not proved to be a great option, given the carnage the backlash has produced, which, even if the sect is finally defeated and annihilated, would still leave a huge scar that may never go away anytime soon.



The Government policies on pro-Biafra agitation are, ill-advis­edly, all repression. There is no positive engagement. Government appears to be pushing for water to find its levels. This is a very avoid­able, destructive option, as it cre­ates lose - lose situation. A flood that finds its level, rather than be­ing provided a path, can submerge a whole country (-side) and taking down everything on its path.
The United Nations and most national governments, who ex­pressed reluctance to become involved in what was officially considered an internal Nigerian affair when Biafra debuted in the ‘60s, may not remain silent for too long this time around, following the humanitarian crisis brought on by the growing fresh agita­tion for Biafra. Then, Secretary General of the United Nations, U Thant, refused to support even the airlifts to Biafra on humanitarian ground. Then also, the position of the Organization of African Unity was not to intervene in conflicts its members deemed internal and to support the nation-state bounda­ries instituted during the colonial era. But as these agitations break down international barriers, there is no guarantee that the AU, UN, EU, NATO and the rest of the world will not make a u-turn, in the light of the escalating extraju­dicial killings of unarmed pro-Bi­afra agitators even while carrying out prayer sessions.
In the face of all these, in what, to me, was a bugled opportunity, President Muhammadu Buhari called their bluff in an Al Jazeera interview this March. While re­sponding to question about how he plans to deal with the issue of Biafra, President Muhammadu Buhari said, “At least two million Nigerians were killed in the Biafra war. And for somebody to wake up, may be they weren’t born. Looking for Biafra after two mil­lions people were killed, they are joking with the security and Nige­ria won’t tolerate Biafra”.



The IPOB response to the posi­tion of the President is no less chill­ing…. “On the issue of Buhari’s Aljazeera interview on Biafra, we welcome his comments because Biafra would not also tolerate Ni­geria. Lord Lugard created Nigeria not Chukwu Okike Abhiama, God Almighty. So, like USSR, it will collapse. We, the IPOB Worldwide have decided not to go back on the quest for restoration of Biafra. Nigeria is not bigger than USSR just as Buhari is not stronger than Michael Gobachev. Buhari can kill Biafrans as he did during the 1967 to 1970 civil war, but this time, it will not be the same.”
As the faceoff mounts, there is an inherent contradiction and am­bivalence on the President’s part if one considers his support for an independent State of Palestine with capital in Jerusalem.
Few days ago also, the Presi­dent declared his support for the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Repub­lic (SADR) aka Western Sahara, from Morocco on grounds of self-determination. The President stated that Nigeria would ensure the realization of their self-deter­mination and independence in line with several extant resolutions of the African Union. Though the conditions are not exactly alike, what makes some people believe the Biafrans would not get similar declaration if things are not han­dled properly and in good time? Is it not all about self-determination or are the people of Southeast Ni­geria any less humans?




The EU in response to calls by the Organization of Emerging Af­rican States (OEAS), to support the agitation for Biafra, said that self-determination and border changes must be in accordance with es­tablished international law and not armed secession. To achieve a referendum, pro-Biafra agitators have adopted non-violent means should be utilized including gener­al strikes, economic boycotts, work actions, demonstrations, lawsuits, and civil disobedience.
The Al Jazeera interview of Mr. President gave away so much about the way the President believes the Biafra agitators should go;
“...now are we not in democrat­ic setting...why can’t they organise themselves and vote, may be for a state inside a State...” The President asking the agitators to organise to vote for state within a state is a direct acknowledgment of the strong possibility of a referendum. But unless Nigerian leaders have actually made up their mind to let Biafra go, it is not advisable to challenge the Southeast people to a referendum; it may well be, to your tent oh Nigerians. May it never come to that bad patch.
The President needs to be ad­vised that he is the President of all Nigerians, including the splinter­ing groups. Be they Boko Haram, Niger Delta militants, MASSOB/IPOB, OPC, etc. In a family, un­less you disown a child (in which case you let him/her go), the head of the family and the belligerent child should mend fences to keep a happy home.

No comments