by Patrick Iroegbu
From the 14th of January 2012, the official cultural and state
activities and rites around the burial and memorial of the late Chief
Emeka Ojukwu, the Ikemba of Nnewi and Eze Ndi Igbo of Nigeria, were
flagged off. Since the 14th of January therefore, different activities
planned to mark the elaborate burial of Ojukwu have been going on
despite the horrible experiences of the fuel subsidy removal, including
its challenges, protests, crises and pains to Nigerians as entire that
stood orchestrated and unmitigated by the Federal, State and Local
Governments in the country. It must be noted that Nigeria’s economy came
to a terrible stand still following the critical challenges of some two
weeks of dusty and windy street protests against the fuel subsidy
removal. Deeply painful as the cost of living turned out to be
unaffordable, Nigerians have endured the serious pains of this
development, which indeed, should have been avoided with some simple
common sense application by the leadership of President Jonathan and his
all knowing economic management team and chain of advisers.
One strong thing which is good about this fuel subsidy removal
conflict following the Arab Spring pattern of uprising is that it has
helped Nigerians to unite and mobilize to exercise their rights to
demand not to be sabotaged, unconsidered and inflicted with a broken
hope and economic pains they are not ready to live with. It also helped
to open up critical avenues to understand the Nigerian economic issues
underlying why things do not change for the better and why corruption is
consistently affixed to the danger of less economic opportunity and
growth. Desperate with life by the Nigerian common masses, it has become
imperative to question again and over what is fuel subsidy, how much is
subsidized per pump price of one gallon or litre. In addition, it
equally helped to engage the labour unions and the civil society to send
voices and point “T” and “F” fingers where they are needed to the
government to stop playing on the public interest and intelligence.
Having said that, it is important to note that there are activities
lined up around the burial of Ojukwu; and these activities cannot be
delayed or demeaned in view of the fuel subsidy crisis in Nigeria. One
of such activities, which did draw my attention for this article, is the
intellection of the rites of Ojukwu and Biafra as it pertains to
Nigerian unity. Founders of Nigeria who agitated for Nigeria’s self
determination following the events of the 1948 universal declaration of
human rights did understand that forging a nation is forging a
collective vision and public behaviour of self identity and immersion
for everyone. From the struggles to wrestle Nigeria out of colonialism,
Ojukwu emerged in the 1960s as one of the leaders and shapers of Nigeria
of the time. Ojukwu’s entry into Nigeria’s public life and governance
raises questions for everyone, in particular when the issue of Biafra
comes up. How do scholars understand what Ojukwu and Biafra meant for
Nigeria’s unity? Has history questioned and answered enough of the
development of Nigeria through the Igbo migratory and participatory
experiences? What actually compelled the intolerance and killing of Igbo
people in Northern parts of Nigeria in the 1960s? Were the Igbo faster
at championing and calling every area they spread and lived in Nigeria a
home? Why is it so difficult to understand the Igbo by other
communities in Nigeria in practicing communal Nigerianism for everyone?
But again why has the Igbo themselves been constantly maligned in the
centrality of the presidential office holding and charisma for Nigeria?
Why have the Igbo leadership in itself failed up to today to achieve
what they first taught other ethnic communities in Nigeria to belong and
lead from the topmost office of the presidency? Now the question of
Ojukwu being celebrated for his life and sacrifices to Nigeria brings
again the question of Nigerian unity and growth. How does the Igbo
intellection focus on Ojukwu and Biafra in the context of forging and
representing Nigerian unity and advancement? Is there a story line
behind Ojukwu and Biafra we need to know that has not been highlighted?
There is probably more to the issue of Ojukwu and Biafra in the meaning
and significance of Nigerian unity and development than we know already.
There should be some surprises when the gathering for Ojukwu and
Biafran intellection rites will be finished.
Let me therefore share with you the presentation of the launching of
Ojukwu and Biafra’s dream for Nigeria by the Igbo intellection as
organized in memory of Ojukwu, the Ikemba of Igboland. Below is
therefore a full text of the gathering of the Igbo for the Igbo and
Nigeria on the question of Ojukwu and Biafra – in the making and
fostering of Nigerian consciousness for unity. It also follows that
events of a time will either promote or complicate human understanding
of ourselves and the realities we draw from such events in the making of
our own history.
As reported by Journalist Emmanuel Uzor from Onitsha in Anambra State
of Nigeria, on Monday, January 16, 2012, Igbo leaders have launched
Ojukwu’s dream on this day in Ahiara of Imo state of Nigeria at the same
place Ojukwu declared the dream of Biafra in 1969 to reflect the ills
in Nigeria and its leadership failings, lack of will and strategy to
protect lives and property of the Igbo in Nigeria. Here we see the
temptations and frustrating development of loss of lives of the Igbo
that rallied the entire Igbo population to rise to the challenges to
defend themselves from their terrorist killers in Nigeria of that time.
We need to appraise the lessons of the time as we reflect on the
tragedies of Nigeria’s development curve.
With the start of the intellection events, Emmanual Uzor reports that
as Igbo leaders converged on Ahiara, Imo State, the historic site of
the famous declaration of the philosophy and vision of the failed state
of Biafra on June 1, 1969. The Ohanaeze President General, Chief Ralph
Uwaechue articulated the new Igbo struggle anchored on the dreams of the
late Biafran leader, Ikemba Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu.
This speech like the one offered by Ojukwu himself in 1969 is not
only reflective and symbolic but also historically informative. As the
speech in question by Chief Ralph Uwaechue shows, it is stunningly
contextualized in the history and development of Nigeria through the
lenses and sacrifices of Igbo population group that needs to be
reflected on as we mourn and bury Ojukwu. We will never let Ojukwu’s
dream down or go unrecognized and lived with in the annals of
constructing and reconstructing the unity of Nigeria, today, tomorrow
and ongoing.
Chief Ralph Uwaechue spoke with the following themes:
The Ahiara Declaration and Ndigbo
“Today, Monday January 16, 2012 in Ahiara, Imo State, we are
comemorating an epochal event that marked the unflinching determination
of Ndigbo to resist oppression and persecution unleashed on them in
Nigeria. With the Ahiara declaration of 1st June 1969, the Igbo Military
Leader, Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu, rallied Ndigbo behind a common cause –
the struggle for their survival in dignity and security as an ethnic
group.
The Biafran secession bid, aimed at securing that objective, failed
militarily, but the spirit which propelled it remained in the minds of
many, symbolized in the towering personality of Dim Emeka Odumegwu
Ojukwu. His enduring message to Ndigbo, now a most treasured legacy, is
that they must always be courageous and united in their legitimate
struggle for political and economic survival within the Nigerian nation.
In furtherance of the actualization of that unmistakable admonition
and as an abiding tribute to this great Igbo leader, Ohanaeze Ndigbo
following wide consultation, is launching a determined bid to fulfill
Ojukwu’s cardinal dream – a Nigerian president from his home base, the
South-East geopolitical zone.
Recent developments on the national scene have made it mandatory for
Ohanaeze Ndigbo to step out promptly and nip in the bud, the incipient
but potentially divisive controversy, involving some highly placed Igbo
political office holders, vis-Ã -vis the position of Ndigbo on the vexed
question of South-East presidency.
Six Zonal Structure
There is today ample evidence that Nigerians, irrespective of their
political affiliations, have accepted the six zonal arrangements and not
a Sudan-type, conflict-prone, bi-polar demarcation of North and South.
This fact came clear in 2007, when the elective headship of the two key
arms of government – the Executive and the Legislature emerged from
North-West (President Umaru Yar’Adua) and North-Central (Gen. David
Mark). At the same time the third arm of government – the Judiciary –
was headed by Justice Legbo Kutigi also from North Central, although by
existing convention, succession here has been by professional seniority.
Nobody, anywhere in the country, complained that the “South” was
short-changed and deprived, simply because what the vast majority of
Nigerians saw in the situation were two contiguous but separate zones,
North-West and North-Central. They did not see a “North” having it all
and the entire “South” going empty handed. For them our country has six
geo-political zones, not two, vis-Ã -vis the distribution and rotation of
key national offices. At Independence in 1960, what our founding
fathers settled for was a full-blown Federal Structure, with three
Regions, East-North-West as the federating units of our nation.
They did not, in their wisdom, opt for two regions – North and South.
All three regions were constitutionally equal in status. A fourth
Region – the Midwest, was created by regular constitutional amendment in
1963. Alongside the subsequent creation of states by abrupt military
fiat in 1967 and thereafter, the democratically conceived regional
option remained very much alive and soon metamorphosed into the current
six geo-political zonal arrangements. This equilibrated political zonal
structural adjustment, now serving as the basis for the distribution and
rotation of key national political offices, was informed by the glaring
need to better accommodate the interests of our nation’s numerous
ethnic groups, large or small.
The primacy of regional control over the federal in our country’s
power equation was dramatically demonstrated by the choice of Sir Ahmadu
Bello, the charismatic and powerful leader of the Northern People’s
Congress (NPC) to head the government in Kaduna as the regional premier
and send his deputy Sir Abukakar Tafawa Balewa to head the Federal
government as Prime Minister in Lagos. Thus, the national master plan
adopted by our founding fathers at Independence was pure federalism.
There was an agreed specific power sharing formula between the federal
and regional governments.
For our recently recovered democratic dispensation to stabilize and
endure, we should not perpetuate the autocratic military deviation from
the unambiguous terms and intentions of this zonally based
socio-political contract, which brought us together as a modern nation,
without first of all properly consulting and securing the clear consent
of the inheritors of that sacred agreement – the Nigerian people.
Those who are still preaching the antiquated, if not unpatriotic,
North-South political doctrine with regards to power shift should stop
to reflect on the fact that of the fifty-one years since Independence,
the geographical area which they designate as the North has produced
civilian and military rulers of Nigeria for some thirty-eight years,
leaving in the process a most significant stamp on the crucial
configuration of our State and Local Government structure. Although we
admit that some of them, proved to be leaders of good polish and
nationally acknowledged integrity, like Gen. Yakubu Gowon, Alhaji Shehu
Shagari and lately Alhaji Umaru Yar’Adua.
The so-called South by contrast has so far clocked less than fourteen
years in the presidential saddle. If therefore, the two-zone
North-South concept were to prevail, and strict equity were to apply
vis-Ã -vis power shift, when then is the South due to hand over the
presidential baton? Is it after completing its own equalizing stint of
thirty-eight years? Surely, in the interest of national cohesion and
socio-political stability, we must recognize the fact that our country
simply cannot progress steadily, to the desired benefit and comfort of
all the component groups, while operating an unstable elastic zoning
system, which either shrinks to two or expands to six as and when it
suits the sectional interest of any part of this vast and variegated
nation.
Igbo role in Independence
Igbo political role in Nigeria has been consistent in the pursuit of
national unity and inter-ethnic cooperation. Under the leadership of the
late Owelle of Onitsha, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwwe, the Igbos played the role
of bridge builders in the fledgling Nigerian nation. Zik, as he was
fondly called, accepted the leadership of the legendary Yoruba political
activist, Herbert Babington Macauley to form and direct the first truly
significant national political party – National Council of Nigeria and
Cameroon (NCNC).
With respected and nationalist Yoruba leaders like Dr. Ibiyimka
Olorun–Nimbe, the first and only Mayor of Lagos, Sir Odeleye Fadahunsi,
the first national vice president of the NCNC and second indigenous
Governor of Western Region, Alhaji Adegoke Adelabu, the lion of Ibadan
politics, and others including Chief Adeniran Ogunsanya, Chief Mojeed
Agbaje and Otumba T. O. S. Benson, the then Igbo leadership forged a
political alliance which cut across ethnic boundaries. Such was the
extent of their success that Zik was poised, after the regional election
of 1951, but for a last minute hitch, to become the Premier of the
Western Region, the home ground of the Yoruba nation.
The party which he led, NCNC and its allies won a majority of seats
in the Western House of Assembly. Similarly, in the Eastern Region, the
Igbo-dominated NCNC, true to its pan-Nigerian orientation and
commitment, elected as the first mayor of Enugu metropolis, Mallam Umaru
Altini, a moslem from Katsina, North West Nigeria.
Furthermore, in 1957 when the British colonial Government, under
intense pressure from southern politicians pressing for Independence,
attempted to uncouple the union between the North and the South forged
through Lord Lugard’s Amalgamation of 1914, with the offer of
Independence to the three Regions individually, provided any two
accepted the offer, a political crisis loomed large on the national
horizon. The Northern Region, led by the Northern People’s Congress
(NPC) took the position that the North was not ready for that level of
political and economic Independence. The Western Region, led by Chief
Obafemi Awolowo’s Action Group (AG) promptly declared its readiness to
accept the offer. It was the Igbo-led NCNC that held the balance. It was
an issue that could make or break Nigeria if the three Regions chose to
go their separate ways to Independence. The NCNC leader, Dr. Nnamdi
Azikiwe, took the stand that although the Eastern Region was ready to
assume the responsibilities of Regional Independence, its attainment
without the North would lead, in his own words, to the “Balkanization of
the Nigerian Nation” and conceivably a break-up of the country. The
Eastern Region would rather suppress its appetite for Independence and
the obvious gains it would entail until the Northern Region was ready.
That was how Nigerian Independence was delayed until 1960. In short, the
Igbo–led Eastern Region would rather forgo the advancement of its own
political and economic interests, than risk the break-up of Nigeria.
Similarly, when Zik moved to the Federal scene as Governor-General and
later titular President of Nigeria, the NCNC, under the dynamic
leadership of Dr. Michael Okpara, continued faithfully.
Had the Eastern Region opted for Independence at that time, the
territory under its control would have comprised in today’s terms the
following nine states with their enormous human and natural resources:
Abia, Akwa-Ibom, Anambra, Bayelsa, Cross River, Ebonyi, Enugu, Imo, and
Rivers. It would also have included in all probability (as was the case
with then Northern Cameroon, which became today’s Adamawa and Taraba
States) what was then Southern Cameroon, with the oil-rich Bakassi
Peninsula well in the middle of a distinct, sovereign and Independent
Eastern Nigeria. By 1960, the three Regions would have become separate
sovereign states. There would have been no question of Biafra’s
attempted secession in 1967 from a non-existing Nigerian federation, nor
indeed, the ferocious and devastating civil war fought to stop it.
The role of Ndigbo in socio-economic front
On the socio-economic front, the Igbo played and are still playing a
leading role in the promotion of national integration. Today, there are
several millions of Igbo people living, working and helping to develop
significantly parts of Nigeria outside Igboland. They are in remote
villages and towns nationwide. Be it our country’s commercial cities of
Lagos or Kano, heavy Igbo presence attests to Igbo people’s belief and
commitment to pan-Nigerian nationhood. For the Igbos, anywhere in
Nigeria is home. Indeed, a few years ago, the former FCT Minister, Malam
Nasir El-Rufai, was quoted as saying that Igbo investment in indigenous
private property development in the Federal Capital Territory,
accounted for some seventy percent of the existing structures. Clearly,
the Igbos put their money where their heart is – Nigeria’s centre of
unity.
It is therefore clear that all this long, since the British colonial
administration put together this vast country, the evident role of Igbo
people in the political, economic and social history of Nigeria has been
that of bridge builders and nation builders. The desperate resort to
Biafran secession in 1967, following successive massacres and tearful
exodus of Igbos from Northern Nigeria the previous year, and its
subsisting residual echo in the emergence of the Movement for the
Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), are clearly an
aberration, not an Igbo hallmark, emanating from a sudden sense of
rejection and persecution of a people who have given their all, in
spirit and material resources to the concept and construction of a truly
united, prosperous Nigerian nation.
Cruel Irony
There is today therefore, the cruel and bewildering irony that a
people who have done so much to keep Nigeria alive as one nation are
being systematically denied their rightful “Federal Character” turn at
producing a president for this country. The negotiation for Nigeria’s
Independence from Great Britain, though with the strong support of the
smaller ethnic units, was masterminded by the leadership of the three
largest ethnic groups – Hausa/Fulani (Sir Ahmadu Bello); Igbo (Dr Nnamdi
Azikiwe); Yoruba (Chief Obafemi Awolowo). Apart from the minorities who
have been presidents of our country, two of these three bigger groups –
Hausa/Fulani and Yoruba – have already had their turns of the
presidential slot several times over.
How to balance the imbalance
To rectify this stark and totally unfair anomaly, virtually
perpetuating the exclusion of our country’s largest ethnic group from
its rightful share of political power at the centre, must now be clearly
perceived and resolutely accepted as the priority task of the
leadership of the Igbo nation in charting a new course for Ndigbo in the
Nigerian polity. The attainment of this objective will restore the
confidence of the Igbo nation, severely bruised by the civil war and its
debilitating aftermath, both in itself as a people and in the Nigeria
project, where it once held an indisputable pride of place.
Ndigbo, apart from their demographic weight are exceptionally
resourceful as evidenced by their outstanding achievements in various
fields of human endeavour both at home and abroad. Now is the time to
put these impressive attributes to work and make the desired political
impact at the national level, where team work is crucial for our
collective success. Hence Ohanaeze Ndigbo, is putting great emphasis on
uniting our people and guiding them towards a common political and
economic agenda. The attainment of South-East presidency demands all
hands on deck as it will not be handed over to Ndigbo on a platter of
gold.
The increasing display of unity by South East Governors and other
well-meaning Igbo sons and daughters in pursuit of a common political
and economic agenda is a welcome step in this direction. The virtually
unanimous Igbo support for President Jonathan at the elections of last
April is such instructive evidence that our people are coming seriously
together and can use their collective demographic weight to influence
national affairs significantly. This is a healthy departure from the
hitherto individualistic, rapacious and opportunistic approach prevalent
amongst those struggling for political office in total disregard for
collective legitimate Igbo interest at the national level.
How to achieve Igbo Presidency in 2015
In pursuit of the objective of South-East presidency in 2015,
Ohanaeze Ndigbo has put forward a case and is canvassing for the
rotation of the office of the president among the six geo-political
zones of our country. The rallying cry for Igbo support for President
Jonathan during the general elections of last April was clearly based on
this particular premise. It was essentially support for a South–South
presidential slot, with Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, already in the
saddle at Aso Villa, as a lucky, credible and worthy beneficiary. This
patriotic political Igbo gesture extended to the South-South zone in
2011 is characteristically consistent with the massive Igbo support
similarly given to Chief M.K.O. Abiola’s South-West zone in 1999 cited
earlier, with Chief Obasanjo triumphing over his kinsman Chief Falae, in
a distinctly intra South-West presidential contest.
In line with this thinking of Ndigbo, all five governors of the
South-East zone in an impressive and patriotic display of unity,
irrespective of their different political party alignments, spoke with
one voice and acted in unison in support of the South-South presidential
candidate and selflessly abstained from the presidential and vice
presidential contest. So did a good number of erstwhile South-East
aspirants to the presidential seat equally abstain? So also did support
for the South-South come from our respected traditional rulers, revered
religious leaders of all denominations, major political stakeholders and
the masses of the Igbo nation, who came out to register and support a
South-South presidency at the election proper last April. They all
expect the South-East to have its turn in 2015 President Goodluck
Jonathan has publicly declared and emphatically assured our nation that
he will not seek re-election at the end of his current tenure in 2015.
To every politically conscious Nigerian, who believes in true and
demonstrable federalism and wishes to see the strategic office of the
president go round the various geo-political zones of our great country,
this is the opportunity to complete the first round of zonal
presidential representation, hence the South-East should take its
rightful turn in 2015. Thereafter, and only thereafter, will it become
fair and proper, if considered necessary, to change the extant rules of
engagement, certainly not in the course of an on-going game?
By the time President Jonathan completes his tenure, South-East, the
once hallowed political base of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, generally
acknowledged as perhaps Nigeria’s foremost founding father, the placidly
intrepid Dr. Akanu Ibiam, the indomitable Dr. Michael Okpara, the
indefatigable Igbo Union leader, Chief Zacchaeus Obi and lately our
legendary Dim Odumegwu Ojukwu, all of blessed memory, now sticking out
in unenviable political solitude, will distinctly remain the only zone
that has not held the top-most executive office in our country since
Independence in 1960.
Producing the next president by the South-East, a zone replete with
outstandingly capable hands, is therefore, not a favour waiting to be
granted, but a logically due and legitimate political right justly
accruing to it within the Nigerian family in a true ‘federal character’
setting. Ndigbo worldwide fervently and fraternally urge all Nigerians
and our various political parties to see the case of South East
presidency in this equity-generated light. End of speech.
To conclude this article therefore, one will notice from this
presentation the wonderings of the Igbo in Nigerian leadership
phenomenon of political experiences. As we mourn Ojukwu, we re-usher in
his dreams for Nigeria and for Igbo people in promoting the unity of
everyone and every part of Nigerian – circumstances such as the fuel
subsidy and Boko Haram imbroglios notwithstanding.
Burying Ojukwu with lined up activities is not burying what the Igbo
hold dear to their history and contributions to Nigerian unity and
advancement but to re-echo all there is to refer to the dreams which
Chief Ojukwu left behind for re-shaping the present Nigeria of our time.
When the Igbo of Nigeria are considered to be a group with resilient
talents and restless psychology for adaptation and survival, history as
it is revealed by this speech proves that mantle, social value,
impeccable sacred virtue and identity characterization of their
political immersion and behaviour for Nigeria’s unity.
Ojukwu will be buried with all the youth, elderly and communal
obligations, reciprocities and critical fan fares and lessons for
Nigeria to adjust, promote and secure lives.
