"War is thus an act of force to compel our adversary to do our will."

Karl von Clausewitz in “War, Politics and Power” 
 
 

It is evident that the subject of Biafra is a very touchy issue among many Nigerians. It would not be entirely correct to say that Nigeria fought a Civil War because of Biafra. But Biafra became one of the MAJOR reasons why the war had to be fought. Biafra’s progeny up to the point where it was declared as an Independent State was necessary and important.

Biafra, up to the beginning of armed conflict was an expression of self determination by the Igbo people. For a people, whose humanity was asterisked in the way and manner they were massacred, it was important that they convince not just themselves but the entire geographical expression called Nigeria nay the world that they are human beings.

Treated as sub-human and made to run helter-skelter across the so-called country of Nigeria, it was important that they reject such heart-wrenching cruelty, reclaim their self esteem, dignity and self respect by self determining their destiny. As far as they were concerned, Nigeria failed them and they have the right to seek succor outside the Nigerian enclave of misery.

I did read some of the literature about the Civil War. I came to the conclusion from my readings that may be Biafra was necessary because in my judgment, the Igbo had a raw deal. I used the words “may be” because my opinion was not concretely formed since I was still a young man in the University trying to educate myself.

The words “may be” was erased after I met late Major General Joseph Garba, whom I considered a very fine gentleman at a private get together in Ile-Ife in 1987 courtesy of Mr. Kayode Asherifa-Ola who was an elderly friend of mine and the host. I am very sure that General Garba never knew that he made it easier for me to conclude that Biafra was inevitable though, he tried to condemn its declaration and expressed a perspective that many Igbo would not find complimentary.

Listening to him making his case (or is it the Northern Nigerian case?) and narrating what happened in the North of Nigeria in the days, weeks and months leading to the Civil War, and some of the actions that went on behind the scenes during the negotiations as well as what he believed was the workings of the Northerners mind in that period, he convinced me more than any Igboman would have been able to do, that the Ndi-Igbo was treated unfairly.

Later on I went to read his book “REVOLUTION IN NIGERIA: Another View.” In white and black he concretized my view on the fact that there was no option for the Ndi-Igbo, but to declare their own independent country. If a Northerner could make the best case he can and still ends up, though unwittingly, making the case for the desirability of Biafra, then what is there to argue? This is what I came away with reading Joe Garba’s book and the experience reminded me of the cliché during my days of the Nigeria Institute of Public Relations (NIPR) that the easiest product to sell is a good product.

I have met Chief Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu only once. I met him in 1990 at the launching of Ebenezer Babatope’s book “NOT HIS WILL: The Awolowo – Obasanjo Wager” at the University of Ibadan. At that time I was reporting for the Sketch Newspaper in Ibadan. During the launching ceremony, I had approached him for an interview. He responded that he was in a hurry but will give me and two other colleagues of mine a few minutes of “chatting.” The occasion of that chatting did not allow for the kind of engagement one would have liked, but as a reporter, any news that would hit the front page would be satisfactory.

During the brief chat, Ojukwu’s brilliance sparkled. His ability to convincingly articulate his point of view was flawlessly natural. His self confidence glowed through his enervating sense of humour. He explained the Nigerian situation using the theory of  “Booli and chicken.” In an admixture of English and Yoruba Languages he had asked rhetorically: “How can you expect peace to reign ti awon kan ba nje booli, ti awon kan nje chicken?”

We did not discuss Biafra. But generally, he related (as in connecting) the events (which were not explored during this meeting) leading to the Civil War to this kind of inequality and injustice of “Booli and Chicken.” He also assuaged my expressed disappointment in his book “BEACAUSE I AM INVOLVED” published a year earlier by simply assuring me that I was too much in a hurry.

The basis of that disappointment is the reason for this article, because the assurance he gave me has not been met 17years after. And time is running out. It never waits for no one. The book, “BECAUSE I AM INVOLVED” which was the first one he published since his returned from exile did not meet expectations of those who really wanted to know what happened in the years leading to the Nigeria’s Civil War. The title was adroitly misleading given the expectations of the World. Nigeria and indeed the whole world were expecting a ground shaking memoir about Nigeria and Biafra. The book did not touch it.

There are a lot of Books that have been published about Biafra. Some of them are first hand accounts. Some of them are from research. Some of them are second hand or even third hand stories. But none could be in the same class with what Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu would write.

I was young when the Biafra war was on. I have read quite a few books about it since I have known how to read. But the story will never be complete unless we hear from Ikemba of Nnewi. The burden that History places on his shoulder is far greater than that on the shoulder of General Yakubu Gowon or any other player on the Federal side. This is because the Federal side can only tell their own story from their own perspective.

I am one hundred percent convinced that Biafra was necessary. It was necessary, not just because every people has the right to self determination, but because an unfairly treated people have the natural right to protect themselves. It was necessary for the Ndi- Igbo to protect themselves from the bloodletting they suffered. The first law of nature is self preservation.

This same law when applied across the board also questions the rationale behind the invasion of Midwest and later on, that of Yorubaland by the Biafran soldiers. This is my major disagreement with the Biafran Project as it were. I also understand from some of my readings, that there were people in Biafra then who shared this position of mine.

This is why History needs Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu. History is waiting impatiently for him. This is his last duty to History. He needs to write his REAL memoir to explain how his brilliant mind made serious errors that undermined the Biafran dream. It is not as if this is unique to him alone as a brilliant person. History is replete with brilliant minds like him who made mistakes. Remember Julius Caesar. Remember Napoleon Bonaparte. And this does not mean that he was less committed to the ideal of Biafra.

At this level, Ojukwu can not be ashamed of making mistakes during that time. It only shows he is human. It only shows how great he is. Like Genoveva Kanu, one of the closest confidants of Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah once said, “There is no great man without fault.” Even Abraham Lincoln concurred when he said the following:

      “There is a sense in which it is well to let by-gones be by-gones, but we can never afford

to dispense with the lessons of experience. By an eternal law, as unvarying in politics as in morals, to-day is made the child of yesterday and the parent of tomorrow, - the past and the present linked together in the relation of cause and effect, and irrevocably linked into the future. It is true philosophy, therefore, to profit by our mistakes, to the extent of shunning their repetition, while causing the past to reappear where its deeds have been worthy.”   

As a student of History himself, Ojukwu knows how important History is. As a leader, he knows how important it is to lead a people lost. As a visionary, he knows how important it is to have crystal clear thoughts and perception. As an intellectual, he knows how important accurate information as opposed to conjectures, is. As a dutiful person, he knows how important duty is. As a military man, he knows how important precision is. As a politician, he knows how important it is to be well grounded. This is why he has to answer the call to this historical duty by letting his memoir answer some questions. The world needs to know answers to them. History needs answer to them.

How did he come up with the idea of invading Yorubaland? What were his expectations when he was making the plan? Did he expect the Yoruba people to welcome him and/ or his soldiers with garlands? Did he not contemplate the possibility of the Yoruba people fighting back? What were the variables that went into making such decision? The world needs to know.

Or did he have any discussions with any Yoruba leader who encouraged him to invade Yorubaland? Did he have an understanding with any Yoruba leader that the Biafran soldiers would be welcome as an occupying force? Did he think he was doing the Yoruba a favour? If so, why? If not so, explain. History needs to know.

How did he gauge the feelings of Yoruba Nation in his own estimation towards Biafra after the almost destruction of Ore town? Was it one of gratitude or bitterness? What did he learn or what lesson will he pass to History as a result of this experience? The world needs to know. History needs to know. 

What were his motives for invading the then Midwestern Region? What was he hoping to achieve for invading that region? What was the invasion has to do with the independent Biafran Nation? What has this to do with the events leading to the declaration of the Biafran Independence? Was this invasion economically motivated? Or was it just for the domination by the Biafran nation? The world needs to know.

In the days of the crisis before the first short was fired, did Ojukwu and other Biafran leaders consider the Yoruba and other Southern minorities adversaries? If so, why? If not, did he not think that by the Biafran soldiers invading Yorubaland and the Midwest, they (the Biafrans) were declaring war on Yoruba and other occupied peoples in the South? Ojukwu as a military man knows that an invasion is nothing but an act of war. If he knew this, was his objective of waging war against the Yoruba and Midwest meant to “compel” them “to do” the Biafran “will?” If not, does he have a different definition of “war” than that of Karl von Clausewitz above? And if he does, what is it? History needs to know.

Why did he detain civilians of non- Igbo origin who committed no offence against the Biafra nation? Why did he detain many prominent people of Igbo origin who did not commit any offence against the nation? What are his explanations? Would all these detentions without trials amount to war crimes in his own estimation? If not, why? The world needs to know.

What were the real reasons for the execution of Lt. Colonel Banjo? Why was Major Ifeajuna executed? Would he consider the way and manner they were summarily executed “a fair trial?” Would these executions amount to war crimes in his estimations? If not, why? History needs to know.

With benefits of hindsight, does he think Biafra would have survived if he did not invade other peoples’ territories? Did he think he made an error? Or does he still think he made the right call, only that he over estimated his military capability? If it was the right call, why was this so? If not, why? Did he think there would have been armed conflict even if he did not invade those territories of other ethnic groups? Does he now think that it would have been better to fortify Biafra rather than engage in adventures into foreign territories as it would have been appropriate to describe the Midwest and Yorubaland then? The world needs to know.

Were there any international laws violated by the Nigerian side against Biafra? If so what are the laws violated in his own estimation? Did he think Biafra violated the United Nations’ laws by invading other territories that did not belong to her? If not, explain. Does he now think that Biafra would have had more favorable world opinion on her side if the Biafrans were only defending themselves and their own territory? If not, explain. History needs to know.

Did he think there was abuse of human rights in Biafra during the War? Does he think that the Biafran soldiers committed any war crimes which at that time he did not deem as grievous as it is now viewed? What in his own estimation, were the war crimes committed by the Nigerian side against his soldiers or people? Did he operate Biafra in a manner to justify the saying that “all is fair in war?” If not what were the guiding principles with which he operated Biafra? If yes, would it consider it fair for the Nigerian side to use the same principle? Either way, how would he suggest that this issue be tackled to restore a sense of justice to all sides in lieu of the “New Questions, New Indictments” being advocated by some Igbo intellectuals? The world needs to know.

There are lots of myths swarming around as facts. There are a lot of half truths. There are downright falsehoods being peddled around. There is misinformation going around.

History needs Ojukwu. It is time for Ojukwu to respond to the beckoning of History. It is a compelling duty for him. It is his most important duty. It is time now to wager his own stake. It is time now to drain the swamp of half truths, innuendos, myths and fabrications being passed around as facts. Yes, in the mould of Rudolf Okonkwo’s recent article “BIAFRAN STORY: New Questions, New Indictments,” it is time to answer old questions and raise new ones that might be necessary.

Chief Ojukwu should be able to indict those that are worthy of indictment in his own estimation and let the chips fall where they may. I will be surprised if he does not indict, because that would be loaded with meanings. But we have to wait until he does or fails to do so. Either way his unburnished story will be his greatest service to History. Time is now.