Okwesilieze Nwodo, a former Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, has warned that elites of the Southeast may begin to support the secession move of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB.
Nwodo warned that the Southeast may be forced to support Kanu’s push for Biafra if the region is not allowed to produce Nigeria’s next president in 2023.
He issued the warning while backing an elder statesman, Tanko Yakassai’s call for Igbo presidency in 2023.
Yakassai had urged the Southeast to seek the support of other regions of Nigeria to produce the country’s next president in 2023.
He had explained that the Southeast was yet to produce Nigeria’s president, hence the need for them to take up the challenge in 2023.
Reacting, Nwodo told Vanguard: “Yakassai’s call is very fair and that is the correct thing.
“I agree with Nnamdi Kanu in everything he says about the marginalization of the Igbos. He, more than any other person, has put it on the international map.
“If Nigeria tells the elites from the South East that they would be treated as second class citizens in Nigeria, and that they can never be president, almost all of them will go with Kanu to fight for Biafra.
“Any Igbo man who wants to bequeath a secure future for himself and generation yet unborn should support this call for Igbo presidency.
“In the spirit of fairness and equity, Nigeria should give the presidency to the South East in 2023, otherwise, we will join him and fight for Biafra.”
Kanu and his group, IPOB have been in the forefront for the breakup of Nigeria and actualization of Biafra.
The Biafra Nations Youth League, BNYL, on Saturday, warned Miyetti Allah Kautal Haure not to allow the Fulani Security group to operate in the Southeast and Southsouth avoid bloody confrontation by both groups.
BNYL Chief Press Secretary, Dianabasi Odung, gave the warning while speaking in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, and was contained in a statement he forwarded to DAILY POST.
The group said it will effectively use its grassroots structures to checkmate the activities of the herdsmen and the security group in the Southeast and Southsouth.
Odung said BNYL will tackle any suspicious activity, which may be bloody.
He said the Fulani security group if seen anywhere in the region will be attacked.
“We dare them to be more visible, we want to see them, if they’re man enough let them be visible like normal security group and face confrontations from us.
“But if they chose to operate like terrorists that they have always been known for, then we shall meet in the bushes. Their actions will only risk the lives of the cattle breeders” the BNYL warned.
The current mischaracterisation of the Igbo ahead of next elections must be cleared. Law Mefor writes
i was on the Arise TV where he also reiterated that it was the turn of Ndigbo. The elder statesman, however, warned against the Biafra agitation and polemics of a faction of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) led by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, which he said was not helping the Igbo course.
“I want to say that our compatriots from the South East should wake up and realise that Nnamdi Kanu will not be the type of people, who will take the presidency to the South East.” He reasoned that Ndigbo must appeal to, not insult their sensibilities, to have their trust.
While Pa Yakasai and several others have been quite mature and responsible in putting their concerns across, there are many, who are so illogical and insensitive in aggressively pushing the narrative that Ndigbo cannot be asking for the presidency and Biafra at the same time. Some even equate Igbo presidency to breakup of Nigeria. This is as untrue as it is blackmailing.
It is a gross misrepresentation of the thinking of Ndigbo. While Nnamdi Kanu and his disciples might be more vociferous in marketing their belief, they do not represent the true stand of the greater number of Ndigbo and Igbo intelligentsia, which is captured in the “Awka Declaration” in May 2018.
That summit was attended by both the ordinary men and the cream of Igbo leadership, including the President General of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Chief Nnia Nwodo; Deputy President of the senate and highest Igbo political office holder at the time, Senator Ike Ekweremadu.
There were governors of South East states, including the host Governor, Chief Wille Obiano; Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu who chaired the event; Dr. Chukwuemeka Ezife; Chief Guy Ikokwu, former Ohanaeze Secretary General, Dr. Joe Nwaorgu, representatives of the National Assembly like Senators Enyinnaya Abaribe, Victor Umeh and Sam Daddy Anyanwu, among others.
Also there were speakers of South East State Assemblies and wife of the late Biafran warlord, Ambassador Bianca Ojukwu, and of course, former Central Bank Governor, Prof. Chukwuma Soludo, who read out the Igbo position. Presenting a 10-point demand of Ndigbo, Soludo explained that the positions presented for adoption by the 100-man committee were distilled from accumulated years of work on the subject by successive regimes of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, submissions of the Igbo Leaders of Thought for the 2014 National Conference, 1994 constitutional conference and 2005 and 2014 national conferences.
It is heartwarming that the quest for a Nigerian President of Igbo and South East extraction is gaining traction across regional, ethnic, religious and political divides. The show of good faith by prominent politicians, elder statesmen, and ordinary Nigerians alike, rekindles the hope that a greater and more equitable Nigeria is feasible in our lifetime.
In January this year, elder statesman and political veteran, Alhaji Tanko Yakasai, said: “Nigeria had three major blocks. Two of these three, namely, the North and the West have had the opportunity of producing the President. Therefore, the Igbo have a good argument because out of the three siblings, two have already succeeded at producing the President, but the Igbo have not.
“I for one – I am in support of it. I did it before in the era of NPN (National Party of Nigeria), when we had the arrangement that the next president after late President Shehu Shagari would come from the East. We would have settled this problem long ago if not for the military intervention.”
Only last Tuesday, August 4, 2020, Yakasai was on the Arise TV where he also reiterated that it was the turn of Ndigbo. The elder
Okwesilieze Nwodo, a former chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), says the elite in the south-east will join Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), to demand for Biafra Republic if the region does not get the presidency in 2023.
Kanu has been in the forefront of the agitation for Biafra over the claim that the Igbo are being marginalised in Nigeria.
He said the Igbo have been persecuted for over 50 years, advising those who want a secure future for their children to elect an Igbo man as president.
“Yakassi’s call is very fair and that is the correct thing. “In the first republic, the country was led by Tafawa Balewa, in the second republic, it was led by Shehu Shagari and then, those of us in PDP made a very strong case to move the presidency to the south-east, because even the military people were all from the north, apart from Aguiyi Ironsi who presided over for a very short time,” he said.
“For 50 years now, we have been persecuted for having fought for freedom. When will this marginalisation stop? Anybody who loves Nigeria and who wishes Nigeria well should go for Igbo Presidency in 2023 for unity, fairness, equity and for Nigeria to move forward.
“It is only an Igbo man who will not marginalise any part of Nigeria because we constitute the semen that holds the country together. We are the only tribe that you find in every nook and cranny of Nigeria; doing business and developing wherever they are as if it was their own place.
“I don’t believe that the Igbo are not united, there has never been a time when any region produced a consensus candidate, everybody emerged through primary elections.
“There is no zone that has produced a candidate by consensus. It doesn’t matter how many people are interested, they will be subjected to party primaries and the person with the highest vote will win.
“I agree with Nnamdi Kanu in everything he says about the marginalisation of the Igbo. He, more than any other person has put it on the international map. If Nigeria tells the elites from the south-east that they would be treated as second class citizens in Nigeria, and that they can never be president, almost all of them will go with Kanu to fight for Biafra.
“Anybody who wants to be a second-class citizen can support whoever he wants. Any Igbo man who wants to bequeath a secured future for himself and generation yet unborn should support this call for Igbo presidency.
“In the spirit of fairness and equity, Nigeria should give the presidency to the south-east in 2023, otherwise, we will join him and fight for Biafra.”
SIR: The proponents and advocates for the creation of the new sovereign state of Biafra are either through ignorance or wilful negligence selling a Utopian aesthetic political ideology. The fanatical adherent of this new gospel of ‘liberation’ will roundly attack your personality, insult your tribe and question your education for daring to ask them to explain the difference in this new proposed country and present day Nigeria.
That was my experience in a grocery store last week in United Arab Emirates where a fellow described me as a fool who preferred to be a slave to a ‘HAWUSA’ man than be free to live my life under (not even within or inside) Biafra!
While the right to self-determination as enshrined in the UN charter is clear and revocable, subjecting a tribe, nation and ethnicity into your agenda so as to pull crowd is annexation, which is contrary to known public international law and against the same canons that the proponents routinely cite. The resolution of May 27, 1967 that gave Col. Ojukwu, governor of the then Eastern Region, was supposedly made up of delegation of stakeholders from the present day Cross River State. But the same cannot apply in the present day reality. For while the new breed Biafra apologists have consistently bemoaned the amalgamation of the northern and southern protectorate by Lord Lugard, the same set of critics of Lugard’s imposition see nothing wrong in redrawing the international boundaries of Nigeria, calling their new project Biafra – without first consulting the inhabitants of their new country.
Maybe a referendum was done and I wasn’t aware. I doubt if anything close to even an opinion poll was ever held.
I do not lack the ability to live free and live my life as enshrined in the constitution and other treaties, articles, charters or conventions that Nigeria is a signatory to; I just wouldn’t want to be a denizen in 21st century colony of disgruntled irredentist that spawn bigotry into national discuss.
This country has been looted dry by her haters irrespective of tribe and ethnicity. If Nigeria were a mother, she would’ve died of cancer. She has been sucked dry, exposed to scavengers, nationals and foreigners alike. I seriously don’t see what difference being a ‘Biafran’ will make. The last time we see our politicians is during elections, they abscond and come back only for re-election. How these and other governance issues and public policies can be resolved only through self-actualization is what I haven’t been exposed to by the new mongers of the Biafra confraternity.
I will work and pray for the restoration of Nigeria’s glory and hope to see Nigeria prosper rather than see her fall.
General Overseer of Mount Zion Faith Global Liberation Ministries, also known as By Fire By Fire Bishop Abraham Udeh has advised politicians from Southeast to drop the Igbo presidency agenda and pursue actualisation Biafra.
He said Biafra independence or Nigeria restructuring would favour the Igbo more than the presidency.
Udeh, who addressed reporters in Nnewi, argued that the solution was to divide Nigeria into three or make independent from the centre each of the six geopolitical zones.
He said: “An Igbo man might become president in 2023 but he would either be killed or overthrown by the military. I saw that situation in the spiritual realm and warned the Igbo personalities warming up for the 2023 presidential election to have a rethink and rather channel the energy and resources to …Biafra actualisation.
“The only solution is to divide Nigeria into three or each of the six geopolitical zones to be independent of the centre. It is a sealed deal that an Igbo man will never be allowed to rule Nigeria.
“According to how it was revealed to me, an Igbo man, after much pressure to rule, may be allowed to become president but shortly after, insecurity, including Boko Haram insurgency and banditry, will be intensified to discredit such president.
“The military by that reason will strike. I don’t see the Igbo man president surviving the military.”
The cleric, who maintained his prophesy must come to fulfilment, described the president of Igbo extraction as a deceit and scam.
On reports that proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) was quoted as supporting Igbo presidency, Udeh said “if IPOB has succumbed to Igbo presidency politics, it’s on its own and not representing the opinion of all its supporters.”
Civil war. Ten months into the civil war, the international community looked for a peaceful solution to the crisis. A meeting was convened in London and it was resolved that peace talks be held in a neutral place to end the hostilities. Kampala was agreed upon by all parties.
The leader of the breakaway Republic of Biafra, Lt Col Odumegwu Ojukwu, inspects a guard of honour. Photo | File
By Henry Lubega
On May 30, 1967, a section of the Nigerian army, led by Lt Col Odumegwu Ojukwu, steered a break away from eastern Nigeria to form the Republic of Biafra. Nigeria was then led by Gen Yakubu Gowon. More than a month later, on July 6, 1967, troops from the federal government of Nigeria attacked the self-declared Republic of Biafra, starting a 33-month civil war.
Ten months into the war, the international community looked for a peaceful solution to the crisis. Former colonial masters Britain, working through the Commonwealth, brought the two warring parties to a round table in London.
The London meeting resolved to have peace talks to end the hostilities. It was agreed that a convenient place be found outside Britain to hold the talks. The Biafran team preferred Senegal capital Dakar because their president was the first head of state to recognise Biafra. But the Nigerian government was not willing to have talks in a country it deemed hostile.
Enter Uganda At the London meeting, Commonwealth secretary general Arnold Smith had asked the two parties to present a list of capitals they preferred to host the talks. Kampala was the only capital to feature on both lists. In choosing Kampala, the Biafra delegation said Kampala had not shown any hostility towards them.
Former president Milton Obote.
“Uganda is a member of the Commonwealth, OAU [Organisation of African Unity] and the East African Common Services Organization. Kampala may be a compromise choice that appears to reconcile the claims of Lagos that talks should be held under the auspices of the Commonwealth or OAU,” writes John J. Stremlau in The International Politics of the Nigerian Civil War, 1967-1970.
“The Ugandan head of state, Dr [Apollo Milton] Obote has not shown any hostility towards Biafra since the struggle began, and the influence of our vocal East African friends will be around the corner to strengthen Biafra’s position.”
The two parties were to meet in Kampala for nine-day talks starting from May 23, 1968. The Nigerian government delegation was led by commissioner for Information and Labour, Anthony Enahoro. Others on his team were Aminu Kano, Col George Kurobo, Ukpabi Asika and Dr B.J. Ikpeme. The rebels’ delegation was led by the chief justice of Biafra, Sir Louis Mbanefo. Members of his team included C.C. Mojekwu, James Udo-Affia, Prof Eni Njoku and I.S. Kogbara.
As chairperson of the talks, president Milton Obote was given a free hand to appoint observers, provided they were not heads of state. They had to be of any standing in society. Obote appointed Uganda’s Foreign Affairs minister Sam Odaka and Commonwealth secretary general Smith as the two observers.
While opening the talks at the Parliament Building in Kampala, Obote said: “It is with this basic consideration that I would urge you to be magnanimous, to take the lead in initiating an immediate agreement on the secession of hostilities. To both delegations, I would say that the federal nation of Nigeria before the conflict was the kingpin of African freedom.
“Political solutions are fundamental in these talks and should be given more emphasis than the military aspects. Political decisions and understanding are useful and necessary and it’s possible to guarantee their permanence through mutual confidence. Such confidence can only be generated when there is mutual respect and genuine appreciation of fears each group entertain.
“I am of the opinion that you are capable of spearing the necessary confidence among yourselves for the success of these talks. For the last 11 months, the civil war has given the impression that you have sought to shut your heart and eyes upon one another. My appeal today is that you open your hearts and minds and you retrace your steps. The prayer of all your well-wishers is that the painful process of the past 11 months be reversed if you are to find a lasting solution.”
The talks did not start well on day one. News reached Kampala that Port Harcourt had been captured by the federal troops from the rebels. This dampened the spirit of the Biafran delegation in the same measures it strengthened the government’s delegation, giving it an upper hand in the talks.
The bad omen of the day was not reserved for the rebels alone. An aide to the head of the government delegation, Johnson Bajo, disappeared from his room at Apollo Hotel, now Sheraton Kampala Hotel.
“The Uganda police discovered the body in a swamp outside Kampala long after the conference, and from the autopsy it concluded he had been murdered. The federal government had no idea who the adductors were, but suspected the crime was somehow linked to the Ugandan domestic politics and the then incipient secessionist movement among the Baganda,” writes Stremlau. After the delegations overcame the slow start, the two parties again failed to reach a compromise on the fourth day.
Writing in Nigeria: Echoes of A Century, Ifeoha Azikiwe, says: “The Kampala peace initiatives could not advance progressively due to disagreement. The Nigerian delegation wanted the discussions to be held before the ceasefire, adding that anything to the contrary was running away from the problem. The Biafran delegation demanded for immediate secession of hostilities, removal of economic blockade, and removal of federal troops to pre-war boundaries.”
With each side standing its ground, the talks came to a halt. The government delegation thought it had an upper hand as it was making advances on the battle field. It saw no need of making concessions with the rebels. Days later, on May 29, 1968, Lt Col Ojukwu dealt the talks a blow during his speech to mark Biafra’s first anniversary.
“They believe in nothing but a military solution and would prefer that to peaceful negotiations. Their insincerity about the current talks has been borne out by Nigeria’s delaying manoeuvres, first during the preliminary talks and now during the full-scale negotiations. Nigeria and Britain will bear the full responsibility for the failure of the talks,” he said in a midnight radio broadcast.
Following his leader’s declaration, the leader of the Biafra delegation, Sir Louis Mbafeno, started sending signals of his side’s intentions to pull out of the talks.
It took the Commonwealth general secretary’s convincing for Mbafeno to delay his walkout, which he eventually did. On May 31, 1968, after hours of pleading by Smith, who even suggested a one-week break to consult with his principles. Mbafeno, however, declared that they were leaving Kampala. And that evening he left Kampala for London.
“The Biafran delegation does not see that any useful purpose can be served in Kampala while more lives are lost daily in this gruesome war,” he was quoted as saying, adding that since the Biafran army was not yet defeated, they would not surrender.
His counterpart representing the Nigerian government, Chief Enahoro, stayed around for a while during which time he held a series of meetings with president Obote. Enahoro wanted to get assurance from the Ugandan president that he was not going to recognise Biafra as a state.
“The Nigerian federal government should consider a unilateral ceasefire for about a week. The Nigerian government is in a strong enough position militarily and politically to be magnanimous and should accept the Biafran challenge. This would also strengthen the hands of Nigeria’s friends,” Obote told Enahoro in his parting remarks. “That is not possible,” Enahoro responded.
Breakdown in talks The first to react to the collapse of the talks was the Vatican, with Pope Paul VI saying “the breakdown of the Kampala talks had cancelled the prospects of a rapid and peaceful solution to the Nigerian crisis”.
A few days later, the Nigerian government issued a statement, saying: “The Kampala talks broke down because the rebel leaders wanted a ceasefire, the mere shadow of peace.” From Kampala, the two delegations headed back to London. They wanted to do a post-mortem on what went wrong in Kampala.
Britain, having been behind the talks, immediately sought ways of how to save its image. The Labour government of then prime minister Harold Wilson was accused of fuelling the crisis through its continued supply of arms to the Nigerian government. The sale of arms and failed Kampala peace talks were discussed by the British parliament.
According to the British Parliament Hansard of June 1968 volume 766, then British secretary of state for Foreign Affairs Michael Stewart said, “Until recently our main hopes for success were in those Kampala talks. These talks may be resumed.”
Britain’s state minister for Commonwealth Affairs, Lord Shepherd, was placed in charge of convincing the two parties to return to Kampala for talks. The London deliberations were seen by some as a delaying tactic by the British government to prolong the suffering of the people of Biafra.
“No more negotiations with Britain. There is little doubt now that negotiations are being used by Britain to delay further recognition of our country by other peace-loving states. The government of the people of Biafra demand an immediate end to the Lord Shepherd hypocritical negotiations in London,” Mbanefo declared. “We call on Britain to think seriously on her peace moves or continue the supply of arms to Lagos and drop all the pretences at playing the role of a peace maker.”
