Those agitating for the actualisation of a sovereign state of Biafra may well have justifiable grounds to seek self-determination, a right enshrined in Article I of the United Nations Charter and other international and regional instruments. Five years after the Nigeria/Biafra Civil War, a war that was fought basically to forcefully keep the secessionist Eastern Region as part of a so-called ‘One Nigeria’, Agwu Okpanku, a fiery journalist, wrote in an article in the Enugu Sunday Renaissance, “Biafra as an active physical rebellion is dead; it died in 1970. But there is always Biafra. In other words, any group of Nigerians, whether ethnically or in terms of their social class or their profession or their geographical origin, would revolt if they felt mistreated by this country.”
The injustices against the Igbo of South-East region since after that war are well documented and so need not be repeated here. Ohanaeze Ndigbo, described as a pan-Igbo socio-cultural organization although little regarded by the mass of the Igbo people, has been at the forefront of tabulating these injustices.
It will then be assumed that it was the need to redress these injustices that led to the emergence of the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) in 1999, shortly after the country’s return to civil rule. Founded by Ralph Uwazuruike, an India-trained political scientist and lawyer, MASSOB hopes to actualise Biafra’s independence using the principle of non-violence as propagated by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
But as has happened with militancy in the Niger Delta, Uwazuruike’s MASSOB has in the last couple of years splintered and has been joined by other groups agitating for Biafra independence. Apart from the Uchenna Madu-led faction of MASSOB, other groups have emerged. These include Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) led by Nnamdi Kanu, Biafra Zionist Movement led by Benjamin Onwuka, who is currently being detained by the Federal Government, Movement of Biafrans in Nigeria (MOBIN), which claims to be the political wing of IPOB, the Biafra Independent Movement (BIM) formed by Uwazuruike following internal wrangling within MASSOB, and the little known Biafra Nations Youth League (BNYL) led by Princewill C. Obuka and Ebuta Ogar Takon. The roll call may even be longer.
And just as armed militancy in the Niger Delta has not solved the region’s environmental degradation and gross underdevelopment due to years of neglect but has created pockets of billionaires in the region while the masses wallow in abject poverty and privation, there are reasons to believe that the present-day agitation for the actualisation of an independent State of Biafra may be serving as meal ticket for those at the helm of these pro-Biafra groups.
Agitation as big business
As the Niger Delta experience has proved, when a government believes that the best way to deal with agitations is to first use the power of force on the leaders of the agitating groups and then turn around to negotiate with and throw money at them, it unwittingly creates the incentive for more agitations. Those on the sidelines would study the modus operandi of the guys in the mainstream and, once there is a disagreement, adapt their methods with a few adjustments and launch into the mainstream with a new name. Once this happens, a new line of business is born and there is no end to it. This is what is happening with the neo-Biafra agitation.
Chekwas Okorie, founder of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and now national leader of the United Progressives Party (UPP), in a 2009 pamphlet titled ‘The MASSOB Misadventure described Uwazuruike’s MASSOB as a huge fraud.
“The MASSOB project as being implemented is the greatest and most massive fraud and deceit that has ever befallen the beleaguered Igbo people since we were created on planet earth by the Almighty God,” Okorie said.
Today, not only MASSOB but virtually all the pro-Biafra movements are enmeshed in allegations of being used to advance the pecuniary interests of their founders and leaders.
Nkem Ibekwe, chairman, Mezie-Alaigbo Foundation, in a November 2015 article stated categorically that the neo-Biafra movements are nothing short of brisk business for those behind it.
“Only a few Nigerians are aware that the whole noisy affair about agitation for Biafra is just big business. Starting from Ohanaeze’s dim-witted campaign about Igbo marginalization to MASSOB’s hysteria and IPOB’s war cry about self-determination for the Igbo, the agitation for Biafra is about the personal aggrandizement of the leaders of these groups that has nothing to do with the Igbo interest,” Ibekwe wrote.
He said the genuine struggle for self-determination concretely ended when Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, the late Biafran leader, joined national politics. And whereas Ojukwu’s declaration of Biafra in 1967 had the imprimatur of the Eastern Nigeria Consultative Assembly, the neo-Biafra groups have no Igbo mandate, even though they are hugely funded by Diaspora Igbo people who are emotionally attached to Biafra.
“Of course, when Ndi-Igbo, especially those in the Americas (US, Canada, etc) and Europe, because of their emotional attachment to the name, Biafra, send monies to MASSOB to address matters arising from its so-called non-violent protests, the funds only end up in private pockets. Today, Uwazuruike has a helipad in his country home at Okwe, Imo State,” he said.
To buttress this point, an Owerri, Imo State-based legal practitioner who does not want his name in print told this writer that “Uwazuruike has an empire sitting on acres and acres of property in one of the choicest neighbourhoods in Owerri”.
Endless infighting, mudslinging
Since Nnamdi Kanu’s arrest and detention by Nigeria’s State Security Service in Lagos on 18 October, 2015, the antagonism between his IPOB and Uwazuruike’s MASSOB has deepened, leading to one group accusing the other of being a sell-out. Kanu has since been released on stringent bail conditions, even though the government appears to be mulling the idea of re-arresting him over breach of his bail conditions.
Speaking at a press conference in Onitsha in December 2015 through Tony Nwodo, Nnewi South Regional administrator of his newly-founded BIM, Uwazuruike said Nnamdi Kanu and other pro-Biafra agitators emerged to destroy the Biafra struggle for their selfish interest, alleging that some politicians were financing these splinter groups to fight him.
“They were expelled members of MASSOB because of anti-MASSOB activities and they had no other option but to rush to politicians who now sponsor them to discredit me and the MASSOB members. And because they have infiltrated MASSOB through Uchenna Madu, we had to form the Biafra Independent Movement (BIM),” Uwazuruike claimed.
“People don’t know that Uchenna Madu and Nnamdi Kanu emerged to destroy the Biafra struggle for their selfish interest. Uchenna Madu, who announced himself as the new leader of MASSOB, lied against Uwazurike and sent members of his group to Onitsha where they joined IPOB and carried out protests. We condemn and warn in strong terms that to use BIM to cause mayhem will be met with disaster. It is not through radio broadcast and on the pages of newspapers that a Biafra republic would be actualised,” he said.
In May last year, Kanunta Kanu, immediate younger brother to Nnamdi Kanu, had also accused Uwazuruike of betraying Ndigbo by using the Biafran struggle to amass wealth. Uwazuruike, he claimed, was only pretending to be fighting for Biafra while he continued to oppose genuine agitators for the actualization of an independent state of Biafra. He also advised Uwazuruike to come out and tell the people the truth about how he betrayed the struggle, admit his mistakes and apologise to Ndigbo instead of continuing to deceive them that he was fighting for Biafra. He insisted that as far as the Biafra struggle was concerned, Uwazuruike had come to the end of the road because he soiled his hands by collecting ‘brown envelope’ from the establishment. Kanunta spoke in Aba, the commercial capital of Abia State.
Last January, Kanunta reiterated the allegations against Uwazuruike, who had earlier accused Nnamdi Kanu and his IPOB cohorts of being fraudsters.
He described Uwazuruike as a coward and the real fraudster, while also affirming IPOB’s stand that the BIM leader was the Federal Government’s key witness in the case instituted against the IPOB leader.
“We believe and we all know that he has taken money from the Nigerian government. He has compromised the struggle from the outset. So there is nothing he can do for the Biafran people, not in this generation, not even in the next,” Kanunta said.
“We know him, we know he has never been straight. He sits and thinks about how he is going to sabotage what IPOB is doing because he has suddenly realised that IPOB is genuine. Nigerian government is playing with Uwazuruike because he goes behind to take his own share and comes back. He will talk about Biafra in the night whereas in the morning, he would go back and sit down. Why is it that Uwazuruike is busy destroying the structure that is on the ground already? It is because he knows that he was going nowhere with what he has,” he added.
He absolved the IPOB leader and members of any wrongdoing, insisting that Uwazuruike was the real fraudster.
“He is a fraudster. We know he has never been there to protect the interest of Ndigbo or Biafra as the case may be. Today, his tap is no longer flowing and it’s up to him to decide where he wants to belong; if he wants to be in BIM, let him remain there, if it’s in MASSOB, let him remain there. We know there are genuine people in MASSOB who want to get Biafra today and tomorrow. They don’t care how we’re going to achieve Biafra, but they want it,” he said.
He claimed that Uwazuruike did not have the intellectual capacity to actualise Biafra but continued to believe that Biafra could only be realised under his watch.
“I am very sorry that he is fooling most of our people, using Biafra to do this, but they never knew that Uwazuruike is a conman. We’re making it clear today that he is a conman…We have what it takes to tell the world and Nigeria that Uwazuruike is a fraudster, and that his pastime is to destroy what other people are doing. He is not genuine and he knows he cannot do anything because his time has elapsed,” Kanunta claimed.
Tracing the genesis of the rift between Uwazuruike and Kanu, Kanunta said it began when Uwazuruike wanted to buy property in Glasston Junction, East London.
“We told him automatically no, that it cannot happen, that they cannot be killing our people in Nigeria and you are using the same money these men are contributing to buy property in London; it will never happen. That was how we started having problem with Uwazuruike. Anybody that had superior ideas over Uwazuruike, he wouldn’t want to do anything with that person, that’s the fact and figure.
“When we realised that Uwazuruike was a fraud and we tried to correct him, he felt threatened and started doing all sorts of things. So, Nnamdi Kanu is in detention because he believes in the freedom of Biafra. If Nnamdi Kanu wants to behave like Uwazuruike, he would have certainly come out from detention a long time ago because he had offers, but rejected them,” he claimed.
In March this year, Eze Israel Kanu, Nnamdi Kanu’s father, accused Uwazuruike of being responsible for his son’s continued detention by the Federal Government.
Speaking during his daughter’s traditional marriage ceremony at his palace in Umuahia, the monarch alleged that the MASSOB leader was irked because the IPOB leader raised the alarm over huge monies allegedly collected by Uwazuruike’s MASSOB for the well-being of helpless Biafran youths which were misused. He accused Uwazuruike of masterminding the arrest of Nnamdi Kanu on his arrival in Nigeria.
Just recently, Uwazuruike told The Interview, a monthly magazine, that Nnamdi Kanu had been compromised by the Federal Government, alleging that the government bought mansions for Kanu in London. He said Kanu had been secretly recruited by the Muhammadu Buhari government to destroy the Biafran movement from within.
“Apparently they saw Nnamdi Kanu as someone of high value for use. They heard him shouting on radio and approached him and he accepted. Naturally, only a strong, principled man can say no because they will give you irresistible offers. I know the mansions Nnamdi Kanu and people like him have abroad, given to them by the same government – the same security agencies. Don’t worry, the truth will emerge soon,” he told The Interview.
Uwazuruike said Kanu’s insistence “on the boycott of the Anambra State governorship election in November is a ploy to ensure that the All Progressives Congress takes over in the state”.
“All things playing out today, including the so-called ‘no election’ in Anambra State is nothing but a smokescreen. The ‘no election’ is aimed at favouring the APC to edge out Governor (Willie) Obiano; that’s the only thing,” he said.
Uwazuruike called the IPOB leader a mere rabble-rouser who had no clue about how to attain Biafra.
“Let him tell you his own agenda. What does he know about Biafra? Somebody who doesn’t know the difference between an election and a referendum; that there is no difference between election and referendum. He says ‘give me Biafra or give me a date for referendum’. So, what is the difference between the two? All the materials you use in a referendum are the same you use in an election. The only difference is that in an election, you may have many political parties while in a referendum, you vote yes or no,” he said.
Pundits believe that while these accusations and recriminations speak volumes about the real intent behind these pro-Biafra movements that are purportedly fighting for the interest of the Igbo people, the whole truth is yet to be unravelled.
Meanwhile, MOBIN has also explained its point of disagreement with IPOB and why it formed a separate group.
“Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) is not one. There are two IPOBs, and one is known as the Customary Government of the Indigenous People of Biafra (CG-IPOB), administered by Anthony Aniebue under the authority of the Supreme Council of Elders headed by Rtd Justice Eze Ozobu and Dr Dozie Ikedife and is in the Federal High Court, Owerri with the Federal Government of Nigeria for a self-determination case. The other is known as Indigenous People of Biafra Limited, London,” the group clarified in a press statement signed by Ben Obidi, its acting media director, as quoted by a national daily.
“The IPOB operating Customary Government of IPOB is the original movement and was founded in 2012 with Nnamdi Kanu as the Director for Media, Radio Biafra, registered in the UK. It is this original group that has taken the case to international organisations like the United Nations (UN), African Union (AU), among other countries, through the representation of Bilie Human Rights Initiative (BHRI).
“Indigenous People of Biafra Limited, London was registered in 2014 in the UK by Nnamdi Kanu and Uche Mefor, after they had a disagreement with the Supreme Council of Elders and BHRI in October 2013 on the adopted methodology to achieve self-determination for the Indigenous People of Biafra.
“After the disagreement, the IPOB operating the Customary Government continued with the legal methodology and registered another media platform, BVI to project the activities of the indigenous people of Biafra following the directives of Biafra elders in court with the Nigerian Government,” it said.
Do the Igbo truly want Biafra?
Notwithstanding these sustained agitations, prominent Igbo political, intellectual and business elite, though they agree that the present structure of the country provides justifiable grounds for agitation, have remained emphatic in their submission that the Igbo would fare better in a properly restructured Nigerian federation. They have, therefore, continued to demand a new structure where each state or region will be relatively autonomous with powers to largely develop and control its resources.
Ozichukwu Chukwu, a chieftain of People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and former national vice chairman (South-East) of the party, explained that historically the Igbo have always been committed to the concept of one Nigeria.
“Anyone who is conversant with the history of this country will realize that even in the 1950s when Chief Obafemi Awolowo proposed that secession should be included as part of the constitution and was also supported by Sir Ahmadu Bello, it was Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe who insisted that Nigeria should remain one united and indivisible entity,” Chukwu said in a telephone chat with BDSUNDAY recently.
“MASSOB and IPOB are products of experiences. The young men don’t seem to find accommodation and don’t seem to have any explanation as to what has been happening to them and around them. So they are seeking explanation and until and unless something rational is brought forward, everyone will be at a crossroads,” he said.
Echoing similar sentiments, Monday Onyekachi Ubani, chairman, The Igbo Conscience (TIC), said in a statement on behalf of the group that “Ndigbo are better off and will do better in a united and prosperous Nigeria”.
Stating that the leader of IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, and his followers do not have the mandate of the Igbo people and appear to be tools in the hands of failed politicians, Ubani described their agitation for Biafra as “dubious”, “fraudulent”, “selfish and does not command the support of most Igbo”, “a non-event, inconsequential, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.
Nuisance value
But there are those who believe that even if an independent Biafra turns out to be a mirage, the pro-Biafra movements could give the Igbo a negotiating power in the wider Nigeria, much as Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF), O’odua People’s Congress (OPC) and the militant groups in the Niger Delta have done.
Elvis Agukwe, a former Commissioner of Information in Imo State, is one such person.
While prominent Igbo personalities gathered at the launch of ‘The Audacity of Power and the Nigeria Presidency – Exclusion of the South East in Nigeria’s Power Politics and the Spectre of Biafra’, a book by Godwin Ifeanyi Udibe and Law Mefor, in Abuja last April agreed that what the Igbo needed was the restructuring of the Nigerian State to pave way for each of the federating units to grow at their own pace, Agukwe said, “We must continue to agitate, for if the North is using Boko Haram to press home their interest, we will use agitation to press for power.”
A divided house cannot stand
Whatever their agitations are worth, many believe the clash of personalities and interests between Uwazuruike and Kanu as well as the other pro-Biafra groups has the potential to destroy whatever benefit they may have achieved for the Igbo over the years, assuming but not conceding that such benefit exists.
“If the agitators for Biafra cannot come together under one leadership, then I wonder how they will be able to actualize this cause let alone being able to self-govern themselves if at all their wish is granted,” Felix Obioesio of the University of Uyo said in 2015.
“I can foresee a Biafra that will be locked in a perpetual wrestle for power and influence by the key components of the ‘state’. The Igbo people that make up the majority of Biafra will in their typical nature try to exert dominance in the region which may result in more struggle and more struggle for self-actualization because, unlike the Hausa/Fulani or the Yoruba, the Igbo are not too inclined to having a single head of authority and leadership. So it is in the interest of Nigeria, the Igbo and, most importantly, the minorities in the region, that the present government does everything within its power to resolve this problem and save us from ourselves,” Obioesio said.
CHUKS OLUIGBO
