Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Nnamdi Kanu Bombs Father Mbaka Over Prophecy On Ihedioha, Hope Uzodinma

Biafra: Nnamdi Kanu Bombs Father Mbaka Over Prophecy On Ihedioha, Hope Uzodinma
The leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has berated Rev. Father Ejike Mbaka for predicting the sacking of Emeka Ihedioha and the emergence of Hope Uzodinma as the governor of Imo State, southeast Nigeria.Naija News had reported earlier that the Supreme court sacked Emeka Ihedioha as governor of Imo state and affirmed Uzodinma as the winner of the March 9 governorship election.Giving judgment on the election on Tuesday, a seven-man panel of justices in a unanimous decision, held that Ihedioha did not win the majority of votes cast in the election.Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, who read the judgment, ordered INEC to withdraw the certificate of return issued to Ihedioha and give a fresh one to his APC rival.“The votes due to the appellant, Hope Uzodinma and the All Progressives Congress (APC) from 388 polling units were wrongly excluded from scores ascribed to them.“It is hereby ordered that Emeka Ihedioha, was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the said election. His return as the elected governor of Imo state is hereby declared null and void and accordingly set aside,” Justice Kekere-Ekun ruled.Reacting to the judgment during a live broadcast monitored by this reporter, Kanu described Rev. Mbaka as a “a village informant for Almajiri.”
“Father Ejike Mbaka Is Now A Village Informant For Almajiri”Kanu added that: If we allow Hope Uzodinma we are finished as a people, we must not allow Fulani to dictate for us from Abuja, allow Imo people to decide.“Fulani needs to control who controls you, hence the need to bring in Hope Uzodinma.“If IPOB allows this gibberish in Imo State then they will circulate it to every state. So IPOB cannot allow it, Hope Uzodimma cannot rule Imo, rather call for a fresh election let the people of Imo decide with foreign observers present,” the IPOB leader added.

BIAFRA : Gowon Finally Opens Up On Biafra, Ojukwu 50 Years After

Gowon Finally Opens Up On Biafra, Ojukwu 50 Years After


Yakubu Gowon, Nigeria’s wartime Head of State, has finally opened up on Biafra, late warlord Chukwuemeka Ojukwu and Aburi conference 50 years after the war.
Naija News reports that the General opened up on some inside details of what transpired before, during and after the nation’s three-year civil war in a small version of “General Gowon’s War Memoirs.”
Speaking on the Aburi Conference, which preceded the Nigerian Civil War, 50 years ago, Gowon said, “The purpose of going to Aburi was to try and find a means of coming together again and know ourselves and try to co-operate and work together in the interest of the country. And so, we went there with no set position but to be able to discuss generally and work together to restore the trust and confidence that we used to have in the army which unfortunately was broken by the event of January 1966 of which I was the only lucky beneficiary to be alive among the senior officers from the same school, from Barewa College. The coup plotters happened to have come from Umuahia Government College. For me, this is quite interesting. And of course, I went to Sandhurst with quite a number of them like Alex Madiebo and Pat Anwuna. They were together at Sandhurst but they were not part of those who did the coup.”
Speaking further on what transpired at the peace talks, Gowon said, “At the Aburi Conference, Ojukwu was the only one who came with set papers and a list of demands, what he wanted to be done. And every demand was read from that particular paper. And it was written on a pink paper. And during our staff college training days, if you have anything written on pink paper, it means it is the S-solution, the staff-solution answers to the subject that you are discussing. And so we joked about that, his solution to the problem. With the rest of us, myself and the other governors from the West, from the North, from the Midwest at that time, I said let us go there with an open mind to discuss the issues or whatever it is with a view to bring us all back together. Because as at that time Ojukwu had really cut off from the meeting with the rest of us all this time and even after Aburi.
“After the Aburi meeting, we scheduled a meeting to discuss the agreement that we reached at Aburi and to bring out a decree that would really represent the decision that we took there but Ojukwu would not come to that meeting. Instead, he came immediately after that meeting to Benin to meet with David Ejoor to know the outcome of our meeting which he deliberately absented himself from. And the outcome of that decree was honestly to give Ojukwu practically everything that he wanted in order to have him back to the team so that we can work together to try and solve the problem of the country. My stand was this: You cannot undo what had already happened. I mean the crisis that we’ve had from that coup to all the killings that took place in the northern part of this country at that time. Those things you cannot undo but at least we can now work together to try and get to the bottom of it and deal with any perpetrator and try to ensure that it does not happen again in the country. This was the essence of that decree which if agreed to would have given us that opportunity. The only thing that I added was a clause—the non-secession clause. From the intelligence gathered at that time, we knew that there were plans by the Eastern Region to break away. And that was part of the reason Ojukwu had not been coming or agreeing to our meeting all the time. We had sufficient intelligence that this was what was going to happen. And so, I added one clause which is that there would be no secession. It was on that score that they rejected that decree but I can assure you that the decree represented the honest view of everything that was agreed to at Aburi which gave Ojukwu practically everything. As the head of state, if any governor refuses any decision that I thought was for the good for the country, it cannot be carried out. I had the veto power as head of state but I had to forego some of my powers for peace to reign.”
General Gowon, who recalled that he attended the Aburi conference sick, said, “Unfortunately for me at that time I was having a very serious attack of malaria fever. But I went through the meeting all the same. The decision we took was that when we come back, I am going to make a statement to the nation before any of the governors make any statement concerning Aburi. But still, the fever was there and I was down. As such, I was unable to make any statement on that day or the following day. Whereas Ojukwu when he came back, he went straight to the radio station to say that he got everything and we even agreed to separate.
So I was woken up in the early hours of the morning by the governor of the Midwest who asked: “Have you heard the news or the comments by Ojukwu over the air concerning Aburi?”
“No,” I replied. “What did he say?”
“And then I was told what he had said. So I asked the Midwest governor: “Was that what we agreed upon?”
“No, that was not,” he replied. “But Ojukwu has gone ahead to announce a different thing to his people and to the whole world.”
While expressing his belief that the Biafra war was meant to be in spite of efforts to prevent it, Gowon said “Today, with the benefit of hindsight, I believe honestly that that was fortuitous. God probably meant it to happen so that at least that agreement we got into in Aburi would not strangle the country. Which meant that Ojukwu could have easily decided to secede. And there is nothing that you could do with it because we had agreed to everything at Aburi, except of course when I put in that clause. That was the only additional thing that I added.
“Well, they can say that at Aburi, Ojukwu won the argument but as far as I was concerned, I was honest and sincere in dealing with this thing. There was no cover-up in our decision and my feelings towards finding solution to the problem which required honesty and sincerity as well as carrying along all your colleagues in the interest of the country. Once that is broken, I am afraid I know my duty, I swore allegiance to defend the unity of the country, the sovereignty and the integrity of my country. And as a soldier, this is what I am supposed to do,” the former Head of State said.

BIAFRA : Buried for 50 years: Britain’s shameful role in the Biafran war

Harold Wilson

It is a good thing to be proud of one’s country, and I am – most of the time. But it would be impossible to scan the centuries of Britain’s history without coming across a few incidents that evoke not pride but shame. Among those I would list are the creation by British officialdom in South Africa of the concentration camp, to persecute the families of Boers. Add to that the Amritsar massacre of 1919 and the Hola camps set up and run during the struggle against Mau Mau. 
But there is one truly disgusting policy practised by our officialdom during the lifetime of anyone over 50, and one word will suffice: Biafra.
This referred to the civil war in Nigeria that ended 50 years ago this month. It stemmed from the decision of the people of the eastern region of that already riot-racked country to strike for independence as the Republic of Biafra. As I learned when I got there as a BBC correspondent, the Biafrans, mostly of the Igbo people, had their reasons.
The federal government in Lagos was a brutal military dictatorship that came to power in 1966 in a bloodbath. During and following that coup, the northern and western regions were swept by a pogrom in which thousands of resident Igbo were slaughtered. The federal government lifted not a finger to help. It was led by an affable British-educated colonel, Yakubu Gowon. But he was a puppet. The true rulers were a group of northern Nigerian colonels. The crisis deepened, and in early 1967 eastern Nigeria, harbouring about 1.8 million refugees, sought restitution. A British-organised conference was held in Ghana and a concordat agreed. But Gowon, returning home, was flatly contradicted by the colonels, who tore up his terms and reneged on the lot. In April the Eastern Region formally seceded and on 7 July, the federal government declared war.
Biafra was led by the Eastern Region’s Oxford-educated former military governor, “Emeka” Ojukwu. London, ignoring all evidence that it was Lagos that reneged on the deal, denounced the secession, made no attempt to mediate and declared total support for Nigeria.
I arrived in the Biafra capital of Enugu on the third day of the war. In London I had been copiously briefed by Gerald Watrous, head of the BBC’s West Africa Service. What I did not know was that he was the obedient servant of the government’s Commonwealth Relations Office (CRO), which believed every word of its high commissioner in Lagos, David Hunt. It took two days in Enugu to realise that everything I had been told was utter garbage.
I had been briefed that the brilliant Nigerian army would suppress the rebellion in two weeks, four at the most. Fortunately the deputy high commissioner in Enugu, Jim Parker, told me what was really happening. It became clear that the rubbish believed by the CRO and the BBC stemmed from our high commissioner in Lagos. A racist and a snob, Hunt expected Africans to leap to attention when he entered the room – which Gowon did. At their single prewar meeting Ojukwu did not. Hunt loathed him at once.
My brief was to report the all-conquering march of the Nigerian army. It did not happen. Naively, I filed this. When my report was broadcast our high commissioner complained to the CRO in London, who passed it on to the BBC – which accused me of pro-rebel bias and recalled me to London. Six months later, in February 1968, fed up with the slavishness of the BBC to Whitehall, I walked out and flew back to west Africa. Ojukwu roared with laughter and allowed me to stay. My condition was that, having rejected British propaganda, I would not publish his either. He agreed.
Starving children in a refugee camp near Aba in 1968.
But things had changed. British covert interference had become huge. Weapons and ammunition poured in quietly as Whitehall and the Harold Wilson government lied and denied it all. Much enlarged, with fresh weapons and secret advisory teams, the Nigerian army inched across Biafra as the defenders tried to fight back with a few bullets a day. Soviet Ilyushin bombers ranged overhead, dropping 1,000lb bombs on straw villages. But the transformation came in July.
Missionaries had noticed mothers emerging from the deep bush carrying children reduced to living skeletons yet with bloated bellies. Catholic priests recognised the symptoms – kwashiorkor or acute protein deficiency.
That same July the Daily Express cameraman David Cairns ran off a score of rolls of film and took them to London. Back then, the British public had never seen such heartrending images of starved and dying children. When the pictures hit the newsstands the story exploded. There were headlines, questions in the House of Commons, demonstrations, marches.
As the resident guide for foreign news teams I became somewhat overwhelmed. But at last the full secret involvement of the British government started to be exposed and the lies revealed. Wilson came under attack. The story swept Europe then the US.
Donations flooded in. The money could buy food – but how to get it there? Around year’s end the extraordinary Joint Church Aid was born.
The World Council of Churches helped to buy some clapped-out freighter aircraft and gained permission from Portugal to use the offshore island São Tomé as a base. Scandinavian pilots and crew, mostly airline pilots, offered to fly without pay. Joint Church Aid was quickly nicknamed Jesus Christ Airlines. And thus came into being the world’s only illegal mercy air bridge.
On a visit to London in spring 1969 I learned the efforts the British establishment will take to cover up its tracks. Every reporter, peer or parliamentarian who had visited Biafra and reported on what he had seen was smeared as a stooge of Biafra – even the utterly honourable John Hunt, leader of the Everest expedition.
Throughout 1969 the relief planes flew through the night, dodging Nigerian MiG fighters, to deliver their life-giving cargoes of reinforced milk powder to a jungle airstrip. From there trucks took the sacks to the missions, the nuns boiled up the nutriments and kept thousands of children alive.
Karl Jaggi, head of the Red Cross, estimated that up to a million children died, but that at least half a million were saved. As for me, sometimes in the wee small hours I see the stick-like children with the dull eyes and lolling heads, and hear their wails of hunger and the low moans as they died.
What is truly shameful is that this was not done by savages but aided and assisted at every stage by Oxbridge-educated British mandarins. Why? Did they love the corruption-riven, dictator-prone Nigeria? No. From start to finish, it was to cover up that the UK’s assessment of the Nigerian situation was an enormous judgmental screw-up. And, worse: with neutrality and diplomacy from London it could all have been avoided.
Biafra is little discussed in the UK these days – a conflict overshadowed geopolitically by the Vietnam war, which raged at the same time. Yet the sheer nastiness of the British establishment during those three years remains a source of deep shame that we should never forget.
 Frederick Forsyth is a former war correspondent and an author

Since you're here...

… we have a small favour to ask. More people, like you, are reading and supporting the Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism than ever before. And unlike many news organisations, we made the choice to keep our reporting open for all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford to pay.
The Guardian will engage with the most critical issues of our time – from the escalating climate catastrophe to widespread inequality to the influence of big tech on our lives. At a time when factual information is a necessity, we believe that each of us, around the world, deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.
Our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias and not influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This means we can give a voice to those less heard, explore where others turn away, and rigorously challenge those in power.
We hope you will consider supporting us today. We need your support to keep delivering quality journalism that’s open and independent. Every reader contribution, however big or small, is so valuable.

Monday, January 20, 2020

BIAFRA : Fr. Mbaka reveals what Ihedioha should have done before Supreme Court ruling


The Spiritual Director of Adoration Ministry in Enugu state, Rev. Fr. Ejike Mbaka, has said Emeka Ihedioha should have come to his church to seek God’s intervention, before losing at the Supreme Court last week.
Mbaka stated this during his homily on Sunday, in what was a thanksgiving service.
The cleric used the opportunity to advise the present generation to believe in prophecy which he said was immemorial, and will not cease to exist.
Mbaka said: “What’s the distance from Imo state to Enugu, that after given the message on 31st night, Ihedioha cannot come to adoration and seek for God’s intervention, rather he embarked on attacking and castigating the message and the messenger; tell me the person that attacked a genuine man of God and went scot free?
“What I am doing here is extraordinary and unadulterated, it is not by power neither by might, the way Peter Obi attacked the message I gave him which later put him in this present political quagmire was the way Ihedioha also attacked me.
“I think that when a message like that is given the right thing to do is to ask the prophet what to do to avert it.”
DAILY POST reports that the Supreme Court removed Ihedioha of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP and declared Hope Uzodinma as the Governor of Imo State.
It came weeks after Mbaka’s prophecy, in which he predicted the outcome at the apex court.

BIAFRA : Christian Aid remembers legacy of Nigeria civil war + video

Brian Sheen with medical team in Nigeria 1968

People in Nigeria and Britain "must take time for reflection and remembrance of the Biafran War", historian David Olusoga has said at a Christian Aid reception marking 50 years since the end of Nigerian's deadly civil conflict.
David Olusoga OBE -- a British-Nigerian historian, writer and broadcaster - made these remarks at a reception in Lambeth Palace, London, which took place on January 15, half a century to the day the Nigeria-Biafra War ended.
The Christian Aid event brought together people of influence from the Nigerian diaspora - across politics, charity, media, arts, business and faith - to explore ways to unite to pursue a just, equitable and peaceful Nigeria.
In his keynote address Mr Olusoga reflected on conflict's legacy. He said: "Nigeria is a nation with over 250 ethnic groups. By some methods of calculation it has over 300 ethnic groups. Forged together by the British Empire from three separate colonies it was always, more than any nation on the continent, going to face profound challenges when it came to adhering to the borders left behind by the British Empire. Borders that made no reference to ethnicity or history.
"In the first decade of independence those tensions overwhelmed the nation and the national leadership profoundly failed, and we must confront that… Nigeria like many nations, including the one we stand in today, struggles even today with the challenge of being a multi-ethnic state… How nations deal with those profound challenges remains one of the biggest questions we face in the 21st century.

"But the failures of Nigeria in the 1960s sprang from the historic failures from early decades, including some of those of British rule - and they created and exacerbated the divisions from which the crisis of 50 years [ago] sprang. Those divisions, we have to accept, continue: how could they not? And there are other legacies. One that is often overlooked is that in the fields farmed by some of the poorest communities in the South East remain unexploded ordnance and landmines."
The Biafran War (1967-1970) was fought over the formation of the state of Biafra, made up of states in Nigeria's Eastern Region who declared their independence in May 1967. The conflict claimed the lives of as many as three million Biafran civilians who died of starvation, disease and injury.
Mr Olusoga told guests at the Christian Aid reception that it was "entirely right" that the 50-year milestone was being marked not just across Nigeria, but also in Britain, given the "shared history" between the two countries. "That history, that interconnectedness, that shared past is the reason why today, in both Britain and in Nigeria, we must take time for reflection and remembrance of the Biafran War," he said.
He added: "British aid agencies, such as Christian Aid, played a critical role in trying to assist the millions whose lives were thrown into chaos by the war. The death tolls would almost certainly have been higher had those aid agencies not sent their teams to Nigeria."
Today, an estimated 95 million Nigerians live in extreme poverty, while insecurity and violence in the north-east of the country has displaced millions of people. Christian Aid's Nigeria programme has been providing life-saving emergency relief to affected communities, reaching more than 400,000 women, children and men over the past three years.
Speaking at the reception, Christian Aid's Nigeria country manager Charles Usie reflected on the current crisis. He said: "The reality is that 50 years after the Biafran War, we still have people in Nigeria who are dependent on food aid and who, without food rations, will suffer and die. Right now there are many Nigerians who feel that is appalling and unacceptable.
"Irrespective of tribe or religion we must accompany people through their suffering: we shouldn't allow people to go through those trials and suffering… Poverty is more than just a technical term, it's a deprivation of human existence and it's unacceptable at this time in Nigeria. Our futures are bound together, and now is the time to take action. We need to work together to bring Nigeria to the place where we think it should be."
Echoing this theme, Christian Aid's CEO Amanda Khozi Mukwashi highlighted the need for British-Nigerians to work together with the charity to create a Nigeria where all citizens can thrive and live free of poverty, violence and inequality.
She said: "For Africa to develop and progress, Africans have to be at the heart of the solutions. They have to be at the heart of the energy; they have to be at the heart of the driving seat of where Africa is going … I'm convinced that we need to do it with Nigerians: together in collaboration, in partnership, in solidarity."
To mark the 50th anniversary a new Christian Aid film, 'Brian in Biafra', was screened at the reception. The film tells the story of Brian Sheen, a member of a 1968 Christian Aid medical team who travelled to Nigeria to help Biafrans caught up in the conflict. Mr Sheen was a special guest at the reception, which closed with a musical performance from former Coronation Street actor Victoria Ekanoye.
Watch Brian in Biafra here: www.christianaid.org.uk/news/brian-biafra-film-nigerian-civil-war-milestone

Tags: Nigeria, Biafra, Brian Sheen, Victoria Ekanoye, Christian Aid, Amanda Khozi Mukwashi

BIAFRA : 50 years after Biafra

Sit-at -home: IPOB dares Ohanaeze youths

The Biafran resistance finally collapsed and its leadership and forces surrendered 50 years ago. The armistice and the usual paper work were concluded with effusions of pious declarations of “no victor, no vanquished.” That ceremony marked the end of the Nigerian Civil War of 1967-1970. The strategy for the future and the healing process was based on the so-called 3Rs: Reconciliation, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation. These sounded so reasonable and soothing to keep nervous Biafrans, many of whom contemplated suicide over capitulation, from creating further complications on the path of peace. It seems easy today, but 50 years ago it required a great deal of will power for defeated Biafrans to return to a Nigeria that shoved them out 30 months prior.
And when all is said and done, Biafra would have been inconceivable without the pogroms of May to October 1966. The disingenuous counter argument has been that without January 15, there would have been no genocide. Such false comparisons paralyse rational discussion on two grounds. The Igbo people are not a conspiring lot. After 50 years of the closest investigations there has not been a shred of evidence of an Igbo conspiracy, grand or minor, against Northern leaders.
Again, the identities of the dissidents of January 15 are well known. To set up machinery for mass killing of poor traders, artisans and otherwise ordinary people who were in Northern Nigeria to make a living, because of the bungling of inept coup plotters, denotes a deep-seated aversion.
By October 1966 it was apparent that Eastern Nigerians, especially the Igbo, were no longer protected by the ordinary and general laws of Northern Nigeria. And universal principles of self-survival, therefore, dictated their resistance. But it was apparent that the Igbo neither bargained for nor did they prepare for a war. The last ditch effort to stave off war was the Aburi Accords which were dishonoured with impunity without deigning to disguise what was manifestly a public display of the arrogance of power.
Worse, the post-war strategy was not designed to reintegrate the Igbo. The abandoned property policy, in which all Igbo property in Port Harcourt was declared abandoned and, therefore, expropriated, has no precedent in world history. The Nazis never seized the lawful property of the Jews, even as they shipped them off to the gas chambers. Even in the Balkans, during the years of ethnic cleansing, there is no equivalent. And how could a citizen be said to have abandoned his property in his own country? The economics of offering 20 Nigerian pounds for every bank account in Biafra was cynical to say the least.
The calculated pauperization of Igbo ensured their exclusion from the economy’s commanding heights for so long that, 50 years after the war, the region is still limping, beset by mass poverty, bad roads, fewer infrastructural facilities and leading to the pressure on young Igbos to undertake risky trades and emigration. The tendency to ‘forget’ the Igbo in major national projects like gas pipeline, railway routes, federal appointments and so on keep reminding Igbo youth of marginalization leading to further agitation for Biafra 50 years after its surrender.
How could Nigeria heal when issues that led to the war were not addressed? Those who perpetrated the pogroms of 1966 never had an opportunity to apologise to their victims, as happened in Rwanda. Some property seized in Port Harcourt were not returned to their rightful owners. The Oputa Panel was set up to vent on the enormities of military rule.
An even bigger panel was required to review the events leading to a political maelstrom and war, which claimed the lives of about three million citizens. It was as if the surrender of Biafra had resolved all outstanding issues.
The contrast with Rwanda is truly remarkable. Rwanda rose from a 100-day genocide to now become Africa’s model state, a pacesetter in development, in gender equality (it has more females in its national legislature than males). It devoted time and resources to true reconciliation. It has abolished ethnic differentiation and has made forgiveness a national duty.
Today, Nigeria seems more divided than it was 50 years ago. Our sense of insecurity has worsened, given the prevalence of insurgency, banditry, kidnapping, robbery, the depredations of herdsmen and cultism. The religious divide is sharp. Igbo are so alienated that they have been excluded from positions of power.
It is a poor testimony to Nigeria’s statecraft that the remote and immediate causes of the war are still staring us on the face demonstrating that we have not learnt the lessons. A majority of Igbo youths and most adults feel like a vanquished people. Remarks by Northern leaders on the situation of the Igbo are a reminder of how some of the northern elite think of the Igbo. But a new healing process must be attempted. It is still not too late.
The 3Rs must be implemented. It is not too late either. The existence of organisations such as the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), the Biafra Independence Movement (BIM) and motley of Biafra revanchists are a reflection of the discontent and the unwillingness to accept a poorly managed peace, 50 years after the war.

Sunday, January 19, 2020

BIAFRA : BIAFRA Of roses and bullets: Re-reading reality and illusion in post Biafra Literature

(FILES) In this file photograph taken on October 28, 1967, Nigerian federal army soldiers survey a police checkpoint on the west bank of the Niger River at Asaba, from where they launched an amphibian offensive on Biafra, during the Biafran war. – A civil war opposing Biafra secessionnist tribes fighting for independance and the federal troops killed between one and two milllion people, most from hunger and disease, from 1967 to 1970 in the Biafra region in south-eastern Nigeria. (Photo by Colin HAYNES / AFP)
Introduction
Fifty years ago in the Bight of Biafra, the anger and love that created rivulets of blood that coloured the landscape of Igboland crimson and changed the concept of Nigeria as a nation ceased and changed to recriminations and a new battle for survival.
The Nigeria – Biafra War (also described as the Nigerian Civil War) of 6 July 1967 – 15 January 1970 was significant in Africa for the unfair political negotiations that started – and ended – it, as well as the allegations of genocide and failure of integration of Biafrans into the Nigerian polity after the war. The war also generated unprecedented media attention, dwarfing other conflicts, such as the war in Egypt, occurring around the same time. When the conflict began, the ‘police action’ quickly escalated to war with no formally identified front, involving many factions, including the Third Force, mercenaries and incidental soldier-journalists; it ended in a negotiated peace more noted for confusion and suppression than integration and progress. However, the most important outcome of the conflict has been the cultural shift in literary production.
The geographical area of Biafra was famous for the Onitsha Market Literature in the 1950-1960s. However, with the Nigeria-Biafra war (1967-1970), there was a shift in the focus of the literature from romance and politics to injustice and the portrayal of anguish. Many of the literature were still written by known and familiar writers, such as Cyprian Ekwensi and Chinua Achebe, but there were some new writers – Eddie Iroh, Elechi Amadi, John Iwuh and Ogonna Agu – whose anger created new cultural metaphors for the appraisal of the effects of the war.
This presentation is on the work of these younger writers, many of whom are dramatists, and their reading of new meaning into the post-Biafra/n universe, drawing materials from the politics and the angst of the war. This paper derives from ongoing research into drama produced during the war and promoted afterward. It draws heavily from a monograph that is currently under preparation.
FILES) In this file photograph taken on August 16, 1967, Colonel Odumegwu Emeka Ojukwu, the leader of the breakaway Republic of Biafra, stands in front of a Biafra flag as he addresses a press conference in Enugu. – A civil war opposing Biafra secessionnist tribes fighting for independance and the federal troops killed between one and two milllion people, most from hunger and disease, from 1967 to 1970 in the Biafra region in south-eastern Nigeria. (Photo by – / AFP)

Soldiering, Suffering and Soya Milk
My first knowledge of the war – even though I didn’t know it was war or that a conflict of that magnitude was going on – came through seeing soldiers speeding through the streets of my town in their military lorries. Some officer home on leave or some troops passing through. Somehow, I conflated the image of these soldiers with destruction and anguish; a few years before the war, several homes and industries had been burnt and destroyed during the political chaos of 1964, when the political parties turned the towns and cities in Western Nigeria to a battleground, aptly known as Wetie! (Douse it (him) in petrol and set it (him) alight). They had not yet been rebuilt. While the soldiers paraded along the roads, the chargrilled carcasses of these properties remained as memorials saluting their ego. Yet, for another reason, I was fascinated by these soldiers. I was fascinated by the crisp uniforms, the Land Rovers, the helmets, the boots and the proud bearing of the officers. We – my playmates and I – wanted to be nothing but these soldiers. They were our heroes. And we spent our days marching up and down in-between the houses, relieved only by mother’s calls to supper. Despite our misgivings at the sight of these soldiers, their presence seemed to bring a delicacy that was hitherto unknown to our palates. The soldiers always seemed to have an abundant supply of milk powder and another kind of powder that turned gooey in our mouths and which tasted strange – neither sweet, like the milk, nor savoury. To be candid, it probably tasted ghastly! It was later that I found out that the weird substance was Corn-Soya-Milk, also known as CSM or Formula Two, a newly devised relief food solely produced by the US Government, for the Christian missions to distribute to the starving children of Biafra (see Frederick Forsyth, The Biafra Story: The Making of an African Legend, Pen & Sword Military, 2007).
The problem was: we were not starving children of Biafra, we were not in Biafra, and the soldiers were not agents of the JCA, the Joint Church Airlift or the International Red Cross. Something was wrong here. Perhaps that’s why the powder tasted strange.
Of Refugees and Prostitution
My second intimation was a few months after the war. A community developed in an area between our house and the Methodist Cathedral, seemingly overnight. Shortly, around the Easter period, the place started filling up with rickety sheds and ramshackle structures made with wood planks and iron roofing sheets. The development had a strong impact on me, as the area was on the route I took to school, which was situated in the church compound, and we – my friends and I – had to find other routes that skirted the structures.
There was also something unusual about this new community: it was composed of only women and children. There were no men. Or at least, none that we could see. Naturally, we were curious about people. But nobody could understand the language and communication was therefore difficult and consisted of signs and a hybrid combination of Ìjèṣà (Yorùbá), Igbo and Pidgin English. However, the children mostly went to my school and gradually I became friends with some of them, even if they almost always slept during the morning hours and break periods. We spent the afternoons together playing games or sports in the school, and my friends often accompanied me home and shared our beds.
Gradually, we pieced the jigsaw together. Late-night activities at the now overcrowded Ìtisin quarters; children not getting enough sleep and having to sleep during the day; strong smells of alcohol and tobacco in the area; unexplained noises and fights whose causes we couldn’t fully understand. Yes, our childhood had changed forever.
My classmates, friends now, spent our play times telling us stories of the Biafra that never made it to the newspapers – the horror of death, the pain of injuries, the deprivation, the fleeing from one village to the other at night to escape both the federal soldiers and Biafran conscriptions and hiding in hastily dug pits, the hunger, the lack, and the resourcefulness imposed by the war.
What nobody mentioned were: ‘refugees’, ‘prostitution’, ‘rape’, ‘child abuse’, sexual exploitation’, ‘domestic violence’, ‘assault’, ‘genocide’, ‘kwashiorkor’, ‘hepatitis’, etc.
And it wasn’t long before the whole country started feeling the effect of the war and its aftermath. Unemployment, lack of security, armed robbery, violent burglary – all entered the lexicon of everyday words.
Sunset in Biafra and other Detention Stories
Six years after the end of the war, the government’s policy of reconciliation, rehabilitation and reintegration had run its course and the nation had all but forgotten about the war. The Missing notices in the newspapers had reduced to a trickle and everything had become normalised.
There are some things however that one can never forget.
Our writers and historians also made certain that we never forget.
One of the first records of events was a short play released in 1972, The Last Days of Biafra, by Thomas Orlando Iguh. This was published the same year as Wole Soyinka’s prison notes, The Man Died1. Last Days of Biafra was in pamphlet form, and the cyclostyled copies were circulated at the motor parks, market places or sold by newspaper vendors. Other plays written around the time include Ogali Ogali’s No Heaven for the Priest (1971), and Enough is Enough by Ene Henshaw (1976).
Iguh was a political writer of the Onitsha Market Literature tradition (although he also wrote a few love stories, e.g. Why Men Never Trust Women, The Sorrows of Love). Most of his writings were about African political leaders – Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya, Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, and Nnamdi Azikiwe of Nigeria – and their lives and works. He was not unique in this; many of the Onitsha Market writers wrote a lot of political plays, novels, and poems. Iguh had become a household name with his publication in 1964 of Life and work of Dr. Zik in the Nigeria Republic, on the travails of Nnamdi Azikiwe and the fortunes of the NCNC, his political party, in the general elections. But Iguh’s work became enduring because of the Last Days of Biafra. It passes no judgment or blames. It simply recounts the history of Biafra from the Aburi Peace conference in Ghana to the occupation of a large swathe of Biafra by the federal army, leaving the people consulting the gods in search of peace, a possible reference to the final trip to Cote d’Ivoire by Biafra’s leader, Odumegwu Ojukwu to seek peace. Curiously, Iguh left out the symbolic surrender in Lagos of Col (General) Philip Effiong, the acting leader of Biafran army. Another relevance of the play is that it set a template for younger playwrights writing about the war.
Last Days of Biafra is of course not a piece that can be readily or easily performed – some of the characters, especially Major Nzeogwu and Col Emeka (Ojukwu), routinely have lines running into hundreds of wordcount – but, in the tradition of Onitsha Market Literature, designed to be read in groups and debated in street corners. It was propaganda for the injustice of Biafra.
The following year, 1973, Elechi Amadi came out with his war diary, Sunset in Biafra, which, according to him, “is not a story of the war; [but] an intimate, personal story, told for its own sake”.
Defending his reasons for writing the book, Amadi states:
… the path to full national maturity lies through the fearsome jungle of self-criticism, and the sooner we take to this path the better. There are those who would have no intimate chronicles, now or ever. They are wrong. What today is grim and agonizing may be amusing, even hilarious, tomorrow. Let us not deny posterity a good laugh.
Rather than presenting hilarious situations, however, Sunset in Biafra exposes the many injustices of the war, by and against Biafrans, and especially against the minority ethnic groups in the enclave, one of which Amadi belonged.
Amadi reveals the struggles for survival or those who were not Igbo, the majority Biafran group, and therefore considered ‘saboteurs’. He writes about his efforts to assist the State, his arrests and detention, and his later collaboration with the Nigerian government, and having to work under Colonel Benjamin Adekunle, the commander of the 3rd Marine Commando.
An interesting read. Nonetheless, it was a familiar account. I had heard similar and more graphic stories from my primary school friends.
Sunset in Biafra, however, achieved one thing: it pushed me towards searching out books and accounts of the war. And there were several of them in quick succession from novels, to memoirs, plays, and poetry – everybody wanted to render an account of the war. But every single writer proved the cliché wrong: the popular myth lied – there is nothing glorious about war.
Of Roses and Bullets
One of the most captivating of these post-war novels is Akachi Adimora-Ezeigbo’s more recent Roses and Bullets (2011), the book that provides the first part of my title. It is also one of the most realistic of the Biafran war literature.
With its alluring fragrance and beautiful softness, the rose in bloom is riddled with sharp thorns. When that rose grows in the war front, the thorns drip with poison, turning dreams to putrid nightmares. Coming after a long tradition of literature influenced by the Nigeria-Biafra war, Adimora-Ezeigbo’s Roses and Bullets reminds us in gruesome details that the effects of those three odd years at the tail end of the 1960s still course through our collective veins as a people. The results still affect and direct our thoughts and actions. Our future has largely remained stunted, trapped in the shallow trenches of our consciousness.
Numerous, these novels, all of them filled with the pathos of war, the courage of the fighting forces, the resourcefulness of those left behind, the strategies for survival. The novels nourish our understanding of what happened during those dark months, more than the history books and the soldier’s diaries. Accounts like Cyprian Ekwensi’s Survive the Peace (1976), Isidore Okpewho’s The Last Duty (1976), Eddie Iroh’s Forty-Eight Guns for the General (1979), Toads of War (1979) and The Siren in the Night (1982); Festus Iyayi’s Heroes (1986), Buchi Emecheta’s Destination Biafra (1994) and Ken Saro-Wiwa’s Sozaboy: A Novel in Rotten English (1994) all narrate the experiences that continue to bring that war to every Nigerian parlour and bedroom, metaphorically and physically, through the upsurge of armed robbery, political chicanery, underdevelopment, and general distrust. We may even consider Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Half of a Yellow Sun (2006), which has been made into a film (2013) by Biyi Bandele. But none of the earlier published works attempted to dissect our minds with the psychological consequences of the war as Adimora-Ezeigbo has done in Roses and Bullets.
Nobody could doubt the right or competence of Adimora-Ezeigbo to write about the war. She lived through it; she lost three brothers; she was even a militia, and her experiences must have informed the creation of Ginika, one of the important personas in the novel. Additionally, she has written short stories and other works of fiction on the conflict, apart from her critical study, Fact, and Fiction in the Literature of the Nigerian Civil War (1991).
The novel does not deviate much from the basic formula of Biafran war literature – two lovers, Eloka and Ginika, desperately in love become separated by the war they could not understand or want to be part of, but a war that would end up defining their existence. While their relationship endured the war, it did not survive the peace that followed. This reminds us of the relationship between James Odugo and his wife in Cyprian Ekwensi’s Survive the Peace (1976) But Ezeigbo goes further than that: we are drawn into the divisiveness of war, the agony of dejection and equally the humanity that triumphs as a banner, waving away the pain and violence.
The two lovers find a link in drama, and after a series of performances to boost the morale of soldiers, they decide on marriage. Soon after though, Eloka joins the Biafran army, and later becomes a Captain, same as Nwakire, Ginika’s brother. Ginika herself, having trained as a militia, becomes a worker at the Relief Centre – her contribution to the war – a situation that bodes serious consequences to her future. The two men, with Ginika, display fervent and spirited humanity and maturity that lead to their destruction.
And destruction is an operative word in the novel. Every segment of the narrative renders the human soul practically numbed. Everything reminds us of the ‘primitive animal’ in us. For instance, in recounting the exodus of the Igbo people from the north after the pogrom that contributed to the war, Adimora-Ezeigbo paints a gruesome and macabre image:
“An open carriage filled with human debris. Ginika saw severed hands and legs chopped, lying like pieces of wood on the floor of the carriage; there were dead bodies that were whole but with deep gashes in different places – the neck, chest, and belly… her eyes caught the figure of a woman lying naked, disemboweled; a dead fetus was hanging from her abdomen, its umbilical cord still attached to its lifeless mother”.
Or: “in the open space lay the headless torso of a huge man clad only in black trousers”.
This could have been the description of the carnage at Ibuza, near Asaba, where the federal soldiers indiscriminately killed and burned civilians (see Destination Biafra), or the massacre at Aba General Hospital, where patients were dragged outside from their beds, shot in cold blood and set alight. Though Ezeigbo’s account above was before the war, she leaves us under no illusion that war is noble or that there was “no victor, no vanquished”, the dictum of the federal government after the war. A redundant expression, similar to the wartime “Go On With One Nigeria” slogan, an acrostic formed from the letters of the name of the Nigerian leader, General Yakubu Gowon. In reality, everybody involved in the war was vanquished.
Adimora-Ezeigbo’s language is brutal; the imageries punishing, gnawing our sensibility like a blunt knife exenterating a live specimen. The anguish fills us with despair; hauntingly, you cry for respite, but your curiosity gets the better of you. And the ending does not disappoint, though the twist transports you unwittingly back into the worlds of Cyprian Ekwensi and Ken Saro-Wiwa (Sozaboy). And you wonder: have we really survived the peace, as Ekwensi prayed more than forty years ago? Or are we still psychologically traumatised, fifty years on?
But it’s not all gory, for in the midst of violence, the future grows. Adimora-Ezeigbo indulges the romantic in her with brazen rendering of love, disvirginity, and sex. Yet, those images are also filled with metaphors of violence!
“The kisses they gave each other ignited a flame that engulfed them. She panted and clung to him, even as his fevered and moist lips set out on a passionate journey from her mouth down the smooth road of her neck. Enticed by the firm swell of her breasts, his lips paid homage to each honeyed fruit from Nature’s own garden… the climax was so intense and poignant that the wrench caused little or no anguish; her terror emptied in great delight”.
But the images that linger in the mind are not of the violence and sex. The images that remain and nourish our memories are those of the importance of family ethos, the ingenuity of creative endeavours and the fickleness of the human ego that provided the psychological balm against the war.
Roses and Bullets is a fascinating read providing a generous insight into the core of that gaping sore that continues to blight our socio-political universe. Realistic in its portrayal, and dispassionate and candid in its narrative.
In reading the novel, we notice one other certain thing: those who survived the war did so because they allowed the rose petals to envelop them in a cocoon of hope. They are not – as Uncle Ray, one of the major personas in the novel, says – “opportunists”, but humans engaged with their survival instincts, optimists with dreams of freedom. But they need to heal; the land must heal them, as it gently drains of the poison of war. And that is where Adimora-Ezeigbo’s novel proves different from the earlier novels – a soothing balm to the trauma of our existence.
Whilst novels provide graphic images of the war, dramatic works question and desperately search for answers, or in the words of Chinua Achebe, the quest to know where the rain “first began to beat” the people. Whilst the novels depict the reality of the war, plays written after the war query the illusions created by that reality.
Re-reading Reality and Illusion in Post Biafra Literature
One of the playwrights whose drama poignantly queries the illusions of the war is Ogonna Anaagudo-Agu, another veteran of the war.
Anaagudo-Agu was a student of English and Drama at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka when the war started. He enlisted, saw action at the Abagana sector under Biafran Major Jonathan Uchendu, as part of the Abagana ambush of the Nigerian army led by then Colonel Murtala Mohammed, on 31 March 1968. The ambush destroyed more than a brigade of Nigerian army and raised the morale of the Biafran soldiers. After the war, Anaagudo-Agu went back to the university to complete his education. He published seven plays, including The Last of the Biafrans (1996), Dance of the Deer (1998), The Return of a Night Masquerade (1998), I Fear for Kattie (2000), and Symbol of a Goddess (2005); all inspired by the war and informed by Igbo culture. He creates a cultural metaphor for assessing the effects of the war on the society; he queries the symbol of the nation – is Biafra relevant and was it ever relevant? Is Nigeria a country, and who should belong in it? What is the currency of membership? More urgently, he asks “why Biafra?”
The messages encoded in his plays reflect a vision anchored on the recognition of past mistakes to help in dealing with the mental and psychological anguish of the war. In this, Symbol of a Goddess employs illusions to test the reality of the post-war identities.
Symbol of a Goddess tells the story of Emenike, a Biafran war veteran, and his attempt at integrating into the new Nigeria. He is portrayed as being still patriotic to the Biafran cause, and he fails to accept that the idea of a Biafran nation had been lost. He, therefore, struggles to adjust to the reality of a war that had been fought and lost. Emenike pits himself against society; defying tradition by wearing the Ozo2 anklet despite being a single man who had not yet taken the Ozo title. In his mind, he lives in Biafra, a new nation; he refuses to recognise “Nigeria” and this hinders his integration into the post-war society. In his Biafra, traditional institutions such as marriage are obsolete. He spends his days dreaming of an eventual manifestation of Biafra, metaphorised as the masquerade Egbe Eyi Ugo.
Etymologically, the hawk/kite (egbe) is the archetypal animal associated with the face in Igbo cosmology and mystical thought. The hawk has well-renowned ocular abilities. Ugo the eagle or sacred vulture, on the other hand, is the mightiest bird. Here, the motif references a Hawk with the Sacredness of an Eagle, the cosmic vulture, one of several in the pantheon of Igbo deities, headed by Anyanwu, the Igbo solar divinity, and solar cult. Egbe Eyi Ugo, on a metaphysical level, represents the female force – Nne Nwanyi – as well as the supreme force of eternity and the ruler of everlastingness – the Spirit of Light and of the Rising Sun – which leads us directly to the Biafran symbol – the Rising Sun.
We can already see the metaphor being evoked by Agu, the playwright, here. Symbol of a Goddess presents a situation where we are given an insight into the psychological problem of socio-economic integration3 and cultural adaptation of a “man of flesh and blood”, living in the reality of defeat.
The play is about the war and the post- of it (in the postcolonial sense). For Emenike, the war has not ended; the battlefield has only shifted to the economic problems in the society, the neglect of the welfare of the “losers” – please, remember that there was “no victor, no vanquished” – the psychological trauma of those involved in the war, and the lack of rehabilitation of the entire Biafran region. He refuses to surrender into the reality, preferring instead the “rising sun” of the promised hopes of Biafra. In the end, the dream turns into a nightmare: devastation; children with acute malnutrition (kwashiorkor) roaming the villages; widows holding homesteads together; men disabled by the war; stalled and terminated education; forfeiture of property to the federal soldiers and their collaborators; “genocide” and ignored war crimes; etc.
For Anaagudo-Agu, Emenike represents the vast majority of Igbo youths who lost their identity and security in the 30-month war. The Igbo people had been convinced – and forced – into the war on the premise of living in a free, independent nation with unlimited opportunities for economic, social and psychological development. Emenike reminds us of Nwannekaenyi “Nnamdi” Kenny Okwu Kanu, the political activist and producer of Radio Biafra, who is seeking to actualise the mandate of Biafra as a nation through his Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) organisation.
It is instructive to note that Anaagudo-Agu is not the only playwright who is re-reading the Biafran reality and separating it from the illusions of the past. Other playwrights include Chukwuma Okoye (We the Beast, 1991), Oladele Oladeji (Toro, Yohauibo- Yen, 2011), Tenibegi Karounwi (pseudonym; Diary of a Poet, 2011), and John Iwuh (Birthright, 2011).
Coda
Fifty years on, the ideals of Biafra are possibly being encouraged into the psyche of the Nigerians who claim affinity to the area of the country as defined. For instance, the current agitation for the recognition of the reasons for the war and integration of the “Biafrans” into the Nigerian polity is probably one of the reasons for the discontinuation of teaching History as a subject in all Nigerian schools.

BIAFRA NEWS

BIAFRA NEWS. : NewsCourt acquits, discharges 24 Biafran freedom fighters in Ebonyi

  Nigerians from the south eastern part of the country, under the auspices of indigenous people of Biafra (IPOB) and leadership of  Nnamdi K...

BIAFRA NEWS