Author: Osita Ebiem

Osita Ebiem is a pro-Israel, Igbo writer, activist, and thought leader. He is one of the leading voices in the Igbo independence movement focusing on establishing an independent homeland for the Igbo people.
Posted on

Blowing the Whistle in the 2020 US Election

“I drove thousands of ballots from New York to Pennsylvania.”

When I heard the above statement this week from Jesse Morgan as he testified before President Trump’s legal team investigating the alleged widespread frauds in the 2020 general elections it struck a note in my mind. It was an “a-hah! moment” for me.

I live in Queens County in New York City, about 10 minutes outside Jamaica. My zip code actually falls within Jamaica town. My apartment complex is a post-World War II red brick six story building. It was completed in 1946 and has been occupied continuously ever since. But because it’s been well-maintained it still retains its pristine shape.

SPONSOR THIS POST

Jesse Morgan is a truck driver who testified under oath that he witnessed a suspected electoral fraudulent activity in October that occurred in his line of duty. The summery of his testimony is that he transported hundreds of thousands of illegal ballots from New York to Pennsylvania. Morgan drives for a third party trucking company which serves as a subcontractor to the United States Post Office.

On hearing Morgan’s above quoted opening statement a cloud was lifted from my mind as I suddenly reconciled a bewildering incident that happened where I live a few months back. One afternoon in September or so I came down from my second floor residence to the building’s 1st floor lobby where the residents’ mail boxes are located. I was on my way out but I noticed that unusually large amount of packages had been delivered to the mailing area. On closer observation I noticed that they were voting ballots. They were wrapped in clear plastic packaging. As I left the building I was struggling to understand why so much election ballots should be delivered because in my mental assessment they were obviously several times more than the number of residents in the building. They were undoubtedly in excess of the people in the building even if they were meant for each resident, as far as I was concerned, I had planned to vote in person on election-day and never requested for any remote voting ballot. So, why would so much ballots be brought to the building, I wondered.

Without making any sense of the whole thing I went into the store to do my shopping. Then I ran other errands around the town and returned to the building a couple of hours later. As I walked by the mailing area I noticed that the ballots were gone. So, I looked around to see if they had been distributed to different residents’ doors or by the mail boxes of the residents, but no there were no traces of the ballots anywhere. They were gone. I went into my apartment and very soon forgot about the incident.

I would not think about it or make much of the issue again even when so many people, including the President Donald Trump began to talk about large scale and wide spread electoral frauds that went on during the election. Many accusing fingers pointed at mail-in ballots as making up a large percentage of the frauds. Still, I would not correlate what happened in my building a few months back with the recent rampant complaints about the electoral frauds until when I heard Jesse Morgan testify that he “drove thousands of ballots from New York to Pennsylvania.” On hearing that the puzzling pieces in my head over the past few months seemed to suddenly fall into their proper places. It was like I now know where all the ballots that were delivered in my building went to. Without knowing why it was like I had an answer to my nagging question and a convincing closure to a mystery.

Then I started paying close attention to the testimonies of other people with similar experiences like those of Jesse Morgan and even to those of others talking about Dominion voting machines. Some of them claim that the Dominion machines were conceived to fraudulently affect the outcome of the United States elections.

Additionally, some of the whistleblowers have claimed that many U. S. electoral ballots were fraudulently printed abroad in China. But going by what I witnessed in my apartment building, I have continued to wonder if it were possible that many of those alleged illegal ballots included also some of the several thousands of ballots mopped up from the probable systemically-designed excess ballot deliveries to various cities apartment buildings across the United States.

Since the past four weeks some people have been heard calling for the President to concede defeat in the 2020 elections. From the look of things it appears that it is the so-called media-projected winner of the election that should, out of decency, concede defeat to the President. This conclusion is not hard to come by considering the very apparent wide spread colossal incidents of frauds and election riggings which in virtually all the cases were rigged in the favor of the President’s opponent. However, I believe that all calls for concessions in the election are premature, speculative and, even reckless. The election board is yet to announce the official results of the 2020 election. Constitutionally, it is not the responsibility of the media houses to declare the United States election results ahead of the electoral board charged with that responsibility.

Again, the shrill calls and unusually loud and urgent demand by the media for President Trump to quickly and prematurely concede defeat is very suspect. This unusually urgent call from the mainstream media has prompted many people to question the genuineness of their intention. Some people have tried to understand the urgency of the call and they have asked if it was designed to fraudulently intimidate and pressure the President into making rash and unconsidered decisions.

This unnecessary urgent call for concession has made some people to think that it might not be unconnected with the fact that some guilty individuals and groups are anxious to divert the public’s attention from the widely reported election frauds and rigging. An Igbo adage says that when an evil is left unchecked in a society for an unusually long period it will become the society’s tradition. And that is the danger in hurriedly sweeping under the carpet and covering up such obvious dishonest and fraudulent practices. If they are not sincerely dealt with at their first appearance then they will become an accepted social practice. Therefore, for the sake of saving the United States of America the reported frauds and rigging in this U. S. election must not be condoned. The guilty must not be left unpunished, or the practice will become an American tradition.     

SPONSOR THIS POST

    

Posted on

Why An Independent Igbo-Israelite State Is Necessary In West Africa

The Igbo nation has a vibrant and resourceful population of 50 million. Within this teeming population there is a sufficiently developed bank of human resources capital living in a physical geographical space known as Igbo land. Igbo people have an unmistakable unique identity, a well-developed set of national cultural values and clearly defined and distinct world views. On the whole the Igbo nation has everything it takes to exist and manage their affairs independently of other people. So, the Igbo are prepared to take their own fate in their hands and will not for any reason continue to play any second fiddle or remain subservient to any other group of people. Therefore, Igbo people are out to do everything in their power to achieve Igbo self-determination and political independence from Nigeria.

On the 29th of May 1966 the Igbo renounced their Nigerian citizenship forever. Starting from that fateful day the Igbo determined to reclaim and reassume their national sovereignty and political independence outside Nigeria. That day marked the beginning of the Nigerian state’s pogrom of the Igbo and other ethnic nationalities from the former Eastern Region. The aim and scope of the pogrom was the total extermination of all Igbo from Nigeria. This made the Igbo along with these other affected peoples and Igbo neighbors to secede from Nigeria as the Republic of Biafra. On the 30th of May 1967 the Biafrans unilaterally declared the independence of their region from Nigeria. After the declaration of independence the Nigerian state declared war on the new country on 6th July 1967. The war between the two states lasted till the 15th of January 1970. In the end Biafra was defeated. The Igbo got reabsorbed into Nigeria. But many systemic policies were put in place by the Nigerian state to marginalize and further punish the Igbo for attempting to secede.

After the war in spite of the many oppressive state policies, threats, intimidations and actual killings of the Igbo, they still refused to be deterred and continued clandestinely the struggle for a total and absolute secession and independence of Igbo land from Nigeria. But unlike the 1967 to 1970 struggle for Biafra independence, the new and ongoing struggle to free Igbo from Nigeria is exclusively an Igbo initiative and project which does not involve any of their neighboring ethnic nationalities or their lands. The extent of this Igbo state covers all and only Igbo lands as they were before the advent of the European colonialists who amalgamated the different ethnic nationalities with divergent and irreconcilable cultures, worldviews and lands into a dysfunctional unitary Nigerian country. In this new struggle for Igbo independence, the special circumstances that necessitated the joint multi ethnic independent project in the past are not present. Therefore, this new Igbo state is not Biafra and cannot justifiably be called Biafra because it has no resemblance to the former joint multi-ethnic struggle for an independent state in the 1960s.   

This new agitation for Igbo independence that began in 1970 soon after the Biafra War is fundamentally different from the 1967 to 1970 Biafra war for independence. The 1960s struggle is what I generally refer to as Ojukwu’s Biafra. In this new struggle it is simply and unambiguously the struggle for the creation of a modern and exclusive Igbo-only independent state. This fundamental difference between the old and the new struggles cannot be overemphasized and no one needs to misunderstand it.

This difference should be understood in the light that it is typically said that every generation fights their own battle in their own unique way based on their unique circumstances. What drove the former and what is driving the present movements are basically different. In the 1960s starting from May 29, 1966 the systemic countrywide mass killing of the Igbo and the destruction of their properties began and it was geared towards cleansing out the ethnic Igbo from the Nigerian space. This was what produced the declaration of Biafra independence.

Starting from 29th May 1966 these government backed killings of the Igbo continued throughout Nigeria for one year despite all efforts by the Igbo to reconcile and make peace with Nigeria. After one year of unabated killings and destruction of Igbo properties and, with the death toll of over 100,000 Igbo and the other Easterners who were the victims jointly decided to secede from Nigeria. So, they unilaterally declared independence from Nigeria as the Republic of Biafra. For them Biafra was their best move to protect and preserve the lives and properties of all those within the boundaries of the new state. To prove their determined resolve to defend themselves and their land they fought a bitter war for about three years which ended up costing the Igbo a total of 3.1 million lives in addition to the 400,000 deaths of the other Biafrans.

Contrasting the 1960s Secession Effort with 2020 Effort

The 1960s effort to free Igbo from Nigeria was mostly necessitated by Nigeria’s pogrom against the Igbo and the other easterners. This is not exactly the same with today’s Igbo’s decision to leave Nigeria. In this 2020 and as it has been since the end of the war in 1970 Igbo are not fighting to free themselves from Nigeria entirely because of the ongoing injustices and killings against them. Since the end of the war the Igbo have endured in Nigeria many oppressive marginalizing polices and systemic denial of opportunities and without doubt, these unjust and wicked treatments have been bad enough. But today’s Igbo decision to leave Nigeria is based on the simple reason that they do not wish to remain Nigerians anymore. They would instead be Igbo. As a people they would rather exist and live under their own Igbo identity and manage their own affairs within an independent Igbo nation state outside Nigeria.

As we already noted, Ojukwu’s Biafra was created along the boundary lines of the defunct Eastern Region which he presided over as the governor prior to Biafra declaration of independence. The irony of it is that Eastern Region of Nigeria split up Igbo population in two with one on the east and the other half on west banks of the Niger River. This split the Igbo resulted in the Western not being included in Ojukwu’s Biafra map. That exclusion of course is unacceptable to the Igbo. The Eastern Region was created that way by the British colonialists. They were obviously insensitive to the ugly divisive consequences of splitting up brothers so long as it suited their business convenience and interests. The boundaries of the Eastern Region were established to serve the business and economic interests of the foreign colonialists rather than to work in the political and economic interests of the indigenous peoples.

After considering the circumstances surrounding the creation of the former Eastern Region along whose boundaries were based Ojukwu’s Biafra, the Igbo totally rejected to adopt the defunct Biafra’s map for the new Igbo country. Among the obvious reasons the Igbo give for rejecting the old Biafra map is that the borders were established by the same foreigners who created Nigeria. Over the years most analysts of the reasons for Nigeria’s failure as a nation have come to the consensus that the Nigerian experiment failed principally because the foreigners who created the Nigerian state failed to take into consideration the irreconcilable differences that exist among the various ethnic peoples and cultures who were forced to live together as citizens of the same country. Unfortunately it is very clear that the same factors that orchestrated Nigeria’s failure are present within the borders of the defunct Biafra. Ojukwu’s Biafra boundaries split Igbo people and their land and this is unacceptable and will not apply to the new Igbo state.

Igbo and Biafra are not One and the Same

Prior to 1967 Igbo people were never known as Biafrans. At no other time in history except for the brief period of two and half years (May 30, 1967 to January 15, 1970) were Igbo people ever identified as Biafrans. Yet, since the past five decades after the war there has been this prevalent misconception which has left some people confused. Since after the war, some people have tended to use Igbo and Biafra identities interchangeably when referencing the Igbo. This is wrong. The truth is that Igbo people along with other ethnic nationalities used the name Biafra and its identity to fight a war known as Biafra War from 1967 to 1970. Biafra War was fought by the Igbo and others from the former Eastern Region as a joint effort to free their people and lands and gain independence from Nigeria. Unfortunately, the Biafran project failed as the war ended in the defeat of Biafra.

At the war’s end Igbo people then reverted to their original Igbo national identity and ceased being Biafrans. But out of ignorance despite the passage of many years some people continue to send out mixed messages to observers about who the Igbo are and what their collective national goal is. For the sake of clarity it is important that we emphasis here that Igbo people are no longer Biafrans but Igbo and their goal is to establish an independent modern Igbo nation state outside Nigeria.

Frustratingly however, one can still find a pocket of ignorant individuals who in spite of this clear and unclouded known difference between Igbo and Biafran identities still use the words Igbo and Biafra as if they were interchangeable or are one and the same thing. They are not. Igbo is a nation or the national identity of the ethnic Igbo people. The land they occupy is called Igbo land, the people are known and called Igbo, the culture they practice is Igbo culture and their language is Igbo.

The Igbo are a national people that fit perfectly the current United Nations categorization and definition of who national peoples are. And it is based on that definition that they declared in their charter that any such group of people are legitimately and legally entitled to actively seek for their self-determination and can aspire to be independent of all others and exist and thrive on their own terms as a unique cultural and national group or state.

Most importantly, we need to state here that since the end of the war no one has been given any Igbo mandate to re-impose the Biafran identity on the Igbo nation; the people and their land. In 1967 the Igbo and their neighbors adopted Biafra as a collective identity on an ad hoc and temporary basis. They adopted the Biafran banner and identity to defend themselves against a common enemy. Beyond 1970 no one is authorized to continue to refer to Igbo as Biafrans or their land as Biafra land. It is important to clearly state that Igbo’s abandonment of the Biafran identity after 1970 does not mean that the Igbo at any time abandoned their quest for self-determination and independence from Nigeria. The Igbo are still seeking to restore and reestablish their sovereign and political independence under Igbo banner and identity instead of under the Biafran banner and identity.

Biafra is also a Foreign Nomenclature

One significant reason that some people who support the dissolution of the Nigerian union give is that the name Nigeria is foreign to the local people. They assert that Nigeria as a country was put together and christened Nigeria by foreigners. Yet these same people who oppose the use of Nigeria’s nomenclature are still infatuated and hooked on Biafra as the name for their proposed fantasy country. Such people overlook the fact that Biafra too is as foreign as any foreign names can be. Some of them have argued and defended the name Biafra by imputing strange and ridiculous local or Igbo meanings to the word in order to convince people that it is indigenous. Some of the people can speculate and argue as much as they like but that does not change the fact that the name Biafra has a European origin. The bight was christened so by the Portuguese pioneer explorers who were the first to visit the West African coastal waters before the other Europeans.

The first Europeans who came in contact with the coast dwellers of the Atlantic in West Africa were from Portugal in the 15th and 16th centuries. Initially the interactions between the Europeans and the natives were solely commercial. So, to aid them in their navigation and trade routes the Europeans made the map of the territory for their convenience and gave it the name Biafra that it bore except that the Nigerian government changed it to Bight of Benin after the war in their bid to spite the former Biafrans.

Justifying the Igbo Independence Project

Igbo as a people are unique and clearly identifiable with their own unique set of culture, language, a set of unified customs and norms and a specific physical geographical space. They therefore, can justifiably seek to determine themselves or who they are. They do not need to offer any other qualifications or reasons as basis for them to seek to be independent and autonomously manage their own affairs without any input or interference from any other people. But because it is true, the Igbo can still make references to the issues of unjust systemic mistreatments, marginalization, killings and other such injustices to which they are subjected in Nigeria. But those do not form the most important argument that the Igbo present for their independence. Those unjust conditions and mistreatments can change but the Igbo persona and identity does not change. So, the Igbo are campaigning for their self-determination and independence based on who they are and not based on the adverse things that are happening to them in Nigeria. The Igbo project to free themselves from Nigeria and become independent is grounded on the people’s collective wish to be free and live autonomously based on who they are. It is the people’s deliberate conscious effort that does not depend on the vagaries of fortune or the flimsy and fleeting circumstances of human whims or even the caprices of nature. The decision is immutable and continues to endure until the goal is achieved.

Easily and without doubt the singular most important argument that any group of people can present for wanting to be free and independent from others is their desire to preserve their identity and their way of life as a people. And this is what the Igbo are working to achieve. We are well aware that it may be harder to sustain for a long time when arguing for freedom merely based on temporary unjust and unfavorable conditions the people are subjected to. Such argument might be countered easily by some clever and cunny individuals who deal well in sophistry, half-truths and less than honest rhetoric. Such individuals might come up with the insincere argument that others within the same space are going through the same pain and injustice and as such the Igbo have no sufficient excuse to opt out. Additionally, if Igbo’s argument is based mainly or solely on such ephemeral issues a day might come when any astute politician could emerge in Nigeria and decide to take on those challenges and injustices that Igbo are complaining about. Such effort maybe pretentious or genuine, it doesn’t matter but it might help to weaken Igbo argument and make it harder to win the argument for Igbo separation and independence. On the contrary, the Igbo will always have a valid argument if their need for independence is always based on the idea of their desire to preserve their Igbo unique and separate identity. Fundamentally the Igbo can and do have the right to seek independence and self-determination just for the sake of it and without giving any other reason other than that they are Igbo and a part of humanity.

Igbo Nation State is not Biafra State

For those who are clamoring for a new fantastic state of Biafra on the basis that Nigeria is a foreign creation and therefore a fictitiously forced-on identity should also not overlook the fact that the same applies to Biafra. Some people argue, and rightly so that Nigeria was created for the natives, without their consent, by the British colonialists and, for this reason it is unacceptable to the people who are going through the pain of the consequences of that miscreation. Others also believe that Nigeria failed mostly because different peoples with different and conflicting cultures, languages and world views were forced to share the same Nigerian citizenship. They assert that ever from inception these incongruent ethnic and national interests have continued to clash against each other. Undoubtedly, it is true because these factors are responsible for the dysfunctional state of things in Nigeria and its ultimate failure. Yet it boggles the imagination to see some of these same people fail to understand that in the Biafra they are fighting to reestablish lies the same Nigerian failure-factors. Such individuals continue to ignore the fact that the so-called defunct Eastern Region on whose map the old Biafra was based was also the creation of the same British colonialists. If they have rejected Nigeria as they rightly should then they should also reject the old Eastern Region. It was created by the same British colonialists. What is more is that the same factors of diversities of peoples, cultures,  languages and interests that brought about Nigeria’s failure, are clearly present in the so-called old and proposed new Biafra. If Nigeria failed on the basis of the enumerated reasons what then is the guarantee that this new utopian Biafra will not fail.

An Igbo State by the Igbo and for the Igbo

There is nothing that is stopping the present generation of Igbo from founding a new modern Igbo nation (country or state) for the Igbo and by the Igbo without any foreign input. We believe that there is no excuse for this generation of Igbo to lazily choose to fashion this new country along the lines of an existing foreign concept and cartography. This generation of Igbo must reject the temptation of choosing the easy way out or traveling the path of least resistance all because they don’t want to put in some extra work and “think outside the box” of an existing foreign concept. In this new independence project all things must be made new. The Igbo must draw a fresh new map of Igbo country by Igbo and for the Igbo. They should roll up their sleeves and actually go to work to produce an authentic Igbo map that will serve this generation and many more to come.

In some quarters some presumptuous and misguided Igbo nurse the ridiculous dream of one day inventing what they refer to as a “United States of Biafra.” They believe that the Igbo will sometime in the future after independence go into a confederating alliance with the other neighboring ethnic nationalities through some kind of a memorandum of understanding. It is as clear as daylight and, no one needs any soothsayer to see that this is presumptuously reckless as it will only become a hopeless “Disunited States of Biafra,” an epitome of a house of cards. Except by name such creation will not be anything quite different from the extant Nigeria. What is amazing though is that one would have thought that after the disastrous experience of the united Nigerian nightmare that some advocates for this new Biafra would have learned some lessons. It is expected that by now a long time has passed, enough for such reckless dreamers to reflect and avoid everything with the shape and appearances of Nigeria in Igbo quest for independence.

The Igbo do not have to copy what other people have done elsewhere in order to be accepted in the comity of nations. Therefore, it’s not going to be because there is the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain so, the Igbo must create a “United States of Biafra” just to prove anything. U. K.’s lesson should be enough to warn those who harbor such impractical fantasy to desist from committing such foolish and sentimental mistakes. In case of Britain, after 300 years of being together the union is crumbling, as everyone can see. The various components of the realm are opting out. Igbo therefore at this point must not fall into a similar mistake. In their effort to found a new modern Igbo state they can take a lesson from the British experience and choose to get it right from the beginning. Every Igbo everywhere can and must choose to reject the fictitious Biafran identity in favor of their Igbo identity.

Sentiments and Compromises do not build great and lasting structures

There is no any successful and progressive state that is founded and built up on sentiments. A successful Igbo state is only that which is founded and built on Igbo ideas, cultural values and worldviews and not that which is sustained by borrowed or compromised ideas and cultural values. Igbo’s collective goal at this point should be to found a functional and successful society rather than trying too hard to appear “woke” and look pretty as a fanciful “multicultural” borderless and dysfunctional society.

In the many years of my search I am yet to come across any convincing argument on how the Igbo persona will diminish if they choose to found and run an exclusive Igbo-only country. Of course such Igbo-ideology or Igbo-worldview-based country will not in any way be closed to other people who are willing to come and get assimilated and become Igbo citizens through a standard formal procedure. In the meanwhile some of us have wondered without end what it is that drives some Igbo to sometimes readily and willingly jettison their Igboness or at best compromise and dilute it at the drop of a hat. The question is; what is there for anyone to be ashamed of in a unique Igbo identity. Why should anyone have to compromise their Igboness in order to prove to others that the Igbo are also a part of this universe and should rightfully hold their own uniqueness in it. At this point, the importance of self-acceptance and pride in who the Igbo are cannot be over emphasized. There can never come a time when it will become a virtue to debase oneself in order to prove to the other people any point.

It will be an unforgivable collective amnesia if Igbo people can find it easy to forget the fact which is still very fresh in the people’s mind how self-hurting compromises contributed so much in causing the failure of Azikiwe’s Nigeria. Someone had once said that compromises make for good umbrellas but not good as roofs. In the light of this discussion, nothing can be truer. The Igbo should learn to always think in long terms when Igbo national interests are the concern. An Igbo should always ask how will the decision I make or the thing that I do affect Igbo individuals or Igbo collective in the next twenty or fifty years.

Attaching Igbo’s destiny to those of others will always spell disaster. The Igbo must learn how to believe in themselves and find peace in themselves, enough to always rely in their collective inner strength. When entering into any alliance either as individuals or as Igbo collective all Igbo persons must always consider what will be the effects of those agreements in the lives of the living and unborn generations of Igbo. No Igbo should ever decide or act in a way that will knowingly hurt Igbo interests or individuals. Every Igbo is his brother’s keeper, onye ahana nwanne ya. The Igbo do not have to sell themselves cheap, throw away their identity and tell the others that there is nothing else to the Igbo. No, there is. There is “this” Igbo uniqueness. This Igbo uniqueness is not in any way better than those of others. But it is theirs; and all Igbo must endeavor to cherish and guard this Igboness from dishonor either from within or from without.

Some of us may have come across those who argue for a compromised Igbo state on the premise that the Igbo and some of their neighboring ethnic nationalities are closely connected because they have lived in close proximity for so long and for that reason they have a few things in common. They talk about intermarriages and even in some cases they cite instances of common ancestral connections. That point of course is an emotional argument suffused with sentiments. Remember we had argued earlier that sentiments are not sufficient when the goal is to accomplish any meaningful thing in real life social engineering. In real life situations, no matter how closely related we are, a time will come when for the sake of adventure and expansion of human horizon, all responsible parents must cut loose the tie and free their lovely children to go their separate ways. It is nothing different from the birthing process of a child. No mother leaves the umbilical cord attached to the child after birthing in order to prove that the child was born by them. Unfortunately this appears to be what the purveyors of the neighbor-connectedness argument are trying to do. They pretend to forget that even children who were born by the same parents eventually move away to found their unique, independent and separate family staid (obi.) And once these separations and independence begin to take place, it is only a matter of time that all the traces of close consanguinity begin to fade away and prove harder to establish. Yet, and very fortunately so, no matter how faded this relatedness becomes there will never come a time when that inter connectedness of all humanity will be lost entirely. The true story of our collective humanity has always shown that no matter how long or how far apart we drift from each other that unbreakable brotherly link that connects humans in one big family of our common humanity and brotherhood will still endure. Yet, in spite of this human connectedness and, for the sake of variety and the constant need to continually open up new frontiers for humanity, we cannot stop this inevitable human separating experience.

Posted on

Igbo Independence and Biafran Identity

In this essay we will take time to clarify some areas that seem to confuse some people in the on-going Biafra separatist movement in Nigeria. Over the years, as will be expected, the move for the independence of Biafra has undergone some transformations. These changes seem to have created a sort of mixed messages in the minds of both observers and participants. So, at this point it is really important that we try to clarify some of the seemingly ambiguous aspects of the movement. It is a fact that for some of the participants, those involved in the struggle, many are finding it difficult to come to terms and accept the obvious realities of these changes when they seem to go against some of their assumed or preconceived notions of what the struggle should be about. This is understandable. But in spite of the genuine appreciation of the position of these colleagues it will be foolish if we should ignore the prevailing obvious new realities and facts as they concern the movement. We can only ask that such individuals will be humble enough to find the sincerity and courage to acknowledge these truths and incontestable facts when they are revealed to them. 

Right from the onset we take it for granted that all of us who are involved in this Igbo independence project are concerned with the noble idea and task of establishing a functional and viable society or country. With that in mind we will take it that none of us in this movement is in it for the vain pursuit of an imaginary kingdom based on the fancies of some unrealistic “united states” dreams. Such figments of unreflective imaginations are nothing different from the nightmarish one Nigerian concept which we are saddled with now. Such unreflective idiocies must be avoided by all means if our aim is to succeed and not just thrive but prosper as a new country. 

Igbo is a distinctive language, an ethnic nationality of 50 million, a people with definitive unique identities; a linguistic, cultural and worldview that cannot be confused or mistaken for something else by anyone. This exclusive way of life makes them who they are: Igbo. 

In this regard therefore, it is necessary to state plainly that the current non-violent move (starting from the later part of the 1990s to the present, 2018) to separate Biafra from Nigeria as an independent state is exclusively an Igbo project. It is an effort by the Igbo collective to establish a new country exclusively for and by themselves. And we must quickly add that this desire is just, legitimate and altogether wholesome. 

Igbo people in Nigeria have specific autochthonous lands which they have always occupied from antiquity. In these lands, from primordial time the Igbo have always existed there and passed them on from one generation to the next until this present time. It is the Igbo in these lands so described that want to separate their lands from Nigeria into a new modern country with a sovereign independent status. 

It is in this fundamental fact that the key to an unclouded understanding of the scope or dimensions and the identities of the new Biafra and its people lies. This fact clearly defines the contrast that exists between the 1967 Biafran struggle for independence and the current Biafran independence movement. The two may sound alike but there is an unmistakable difference between them. In the 1967 Biafra, the lands and peoples of other ethnic nationalities other than the Igbo were included in the physical geographical map of the Biafran country. Indeed some Igbo lands were excluded in the map of the old Biafra. But in this new Biafra it is only the Igbo ethnic nationality and their lands everywhere that make up the new country. As we go on with this discussion, this position of an Igbo-only Biafra will be further explained. 

Relevant changes are often necessitated by prevailing circumstances, new knowledge and newly emerging truths. For the benefit of some of our colleagues in this liberation movement we understand that sometimes it is difficult to embrace necessary changes. Most often it is time that is the primary agent of these changes. In Stephen Hawkins’s A Brief History of Time he talks about how difficult it was for him at the initial stage to convince the scientific world to believe in his Big Bang Theory and how even more difficult it has been for him to dissuade the same group of scientists from believing in many aspects of the same theory. But the truth is that new knowledge and truths will sometimes emerge to supplant former truths or ideas. It is therefore, not a sign of inferior intelligence or inferior moral standards to review or change one’s positions based new knowledge and truths. Time and the people themselves must always continually determine and create their own realities based on their prevailing circumstances. And it will always take the painstaking reflective patience of the sincere and honest individual to find enough courage and boldness to accept new truths and new realities as they present themselves. 

Alternatively, putting it more bluntly, we must say that it will be a fatal mistake when anyone especially those in the center of the Biafran movement try to ignore or pretend that nothing changes with the passage of time or that such a fundamental reality on which hinges the total essence of the independence movement will be sorted out later on.

The circumstances that produced the two Biafras are not the same 

We need to make it clear that though this generation of Igbo people take a part of their inspiration from the just and courageous actions of their forebears who rightly fought to be free as Biafrans, but the truth is that the Igbo of the on-going Biafra or Igbo independence movement also have their own unique reasons for embarking on this new project of freedom. Therefore this new business of Biafra or Igbo independence movement is exclusively the project of the present generation of Igbo people and will be fought and won on this generation’s terms and conditions. The old truism that says that every new generation must fight their own battles and win or lose their own victories could not be truer elsewhere than in this instance. 

Briefly, we must mention here, by way of explaining some of those reasons that differentiate the old Biafra from the new: In the past during the 1966 Pogrom the Igbo were not the exclusive victims of the Nigerian government-sponsored killing of unarmed citizens. The other neighboring ethnic peoples or most of the other people from what was then known as Eastern Region of Nigeria were also among the casualties in the killings. And mostly it was the Pogrom that led to the declaration of an independent state of Biafra from Nigeria with the geographical map of the old Eastern Region serving as the new country’s physical boundaries in 1967. That country of Biafra existed from mid-1967 to the second week of January 1970. Another important point to note here is that the old Biafra was declared along the then existing Eastern Region administrative territory as established by the British colonial administrators. The boundaries and identities of the people of this new country of Biafra will be determined by the indigenous people, the Igbo by themselves and for themselves. 

Just like the presently contested one Nigeria, the old Eastern Region of Nigeria was an arbitrary creation of a foreign colonial power without any due consultation with the natives or consideration of the differences that existed among the native peoples who would be compelled to deal with the consequences of the actions. As it is in Nigeria, the old Eastern Region was made up of peoples with incongruent and irreconcilable worldviews and national aspirations who were forced by the force of colonialism to mix together their fortunes and destinies in one political and administrative structure without the benefit of a commonality of cultural and historical antecedent or heritage which serves to bind a people together and enable them to live in harmony and a progress-promoting environment.

The new Biafra  

Due to the continued mistreatment of the Igbo in Nigeria starting from 1970 when the Biafran-Nigerian War ended; the well-documented and publicized marginalization, persecution and complete exclusion of the Igbo from Nigerian commonwealth and all the affairs of the Nigerian state, a group of Igbo people (known as Ekwenche Research Organization in the United States) decided in 1996/1997 to revive the quest for the independence of Igbo people from the Nigerian state. Over the years this quest has evolved but its core agenda remains the same – the determined separation of the Igbo nation and land from Nigeria. 

It is important that no one should miss or mix up this fundamental agenda because that is what gives the movement its nature, structure and dimensions. Except the Igbo, this new Biafra has nothing to do with any other ethnic groups in Nigeria, for obvious reasons. 

Generally speaking, though the Igbo are adventurous and outgoing but they are not known to be imperialistic or to covet the fortunes, stations or places of other people. It is this national trait of the Igbo, which informs the continued survival of the Igbo practice and reverence for Ikenga Igbo – a belief in the supreme importance of individuals’ personal achievement. The Igbo thrives better when they have the exclusive control of their own space and destiny. 

Just as we the Igbo are not interested in the possession or in the sharing of our neighbors’ good fortunes as a result of common citizenship of the same country, we are not pretending to being the redeemers or saviors of these our neighbors either. The Igbo believe that each of their neighbors is capable in their own rights to save, determine and pilot the ship of their own state and destiny by themselves and for themselves. 

In Nigeria the only group of people who is resented, despised, hated, persecuted, and generally considered as the pariah of the state is the Igbo. Just one recent example will suffice here. On June 6, 2017 a group that goes by the name Northern Youth Coalition held a press conference in Kaduna and issued a three-month quit notice to all Igbo people living in what is traditionally known as the northern region. This area covers about 70% of the physical map of what is known as Nigeria. https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/239119-quit-notice-igbos-stands-northern-youth-coalition.html

The quit notice which was backed by the government and people of the north is quite explicit and specifically issued to the Igbo people. In the document that the group read at the press conference it explained clearly why the quit notice was exclusively for the Igbo and not inclusive of other ethnic members of the Nigerian union. 

For the sake of emphasis it needs to be repeated here that over the years that the non-acceptance of Igbo people in Nigeria have remained a consistent systemic and systematic program of both the government and the private citizens of Nigeria. This program is not lost on Igbo people therefore, the people have made an immutable resolve to move out from Nigeria and form their own separate sovereign independent state. This resolve is also based on the universally accepted principle of Self Determination as the right of all peoples everywhere. 

We need to remind our readers that we believe in the unity of all human peoples everywhere but we are aware of the fact that not all forms of unity are good for all peoples everywhere. Without looking far to illustrate this point we can only invite our readers to take a quick look at the disastrous unity of one Nigeria. From the Nigerian example it is very clear that the only unity that succeed are those that are based on the understanding that such a people that are being united have a unified sense of purpose, that such a people are united in the common pursuit of unified national aspirations, and yoked together in their common cultural ways and worldviews. With this conviction that not all forms of unity promote strength, harmony and progress, Igbo people categorically reject any unity that is just for the sake of it. In our opinion, nothing can be weaker than all forms of unity that lark the basic ingredients that foster harmony and progress but instead promote resentment, hatred, death and intolerance.

It is for this reason that we know that any new Biafra that will not take these historical facts and realities into consideration is equally doomed from the start just like the one Nigeria which we are fighting to be extricated from.

At this juncture we need to reassure all Igbo neighbors who are living in the contiguous lands around the Igbo, that we recognize the fact that they too may have their own issues or misgivings about the Nigerian union but we also know that just as it is in the real world, each group has their own unique challenges which is peculiar to them. We also know that just as it is only the one who wears the shoe understands where it pinches, the Igbo do not pretend to know or have the answers to their neighbors’ challenges as it applies to them. As good neighbors, the Igbo are always willing to work in partnership with their neighbors to achieve certain goals such as working jointly together to collectively extricate themselves from Nigeria. Working together in projects of this nature does not mean that other ethnic nations should subsume their unique national identities in the Igbo identity. Should the need arise where the Igbo neighbors will fight alongside the Igbo to win freedom from Nigeria, it will never result in what some misguided individuals erroneously refer to as the “United States of Biafra.” The present Igbo independence movement is not pursuing any such thing. Despite its faults this present generation of Igbo cherishes with pride their unique Igbo identity which they are prepared to own and preserve while working on continually improving and modernizing this their collective heritage to remain relevant and to continuously conform with the universal global standards.

It is in this light that we want to state plainly that this new Igbo-only Biafra will not be a closed society. Although the country will be an exclusive Igbo society and a sovereign country but it will also be an open society that welcomes all-comers from everywhere, without discrimination. For the purpose of emphasis we need to state that this Igbo country will especially be more open and welcoming of those who are mistreated, persecuted or pursued from anywhere. So long as all intending immigrants are willing to come in and be assimilated and ultimately become Igbo by practice and identity, they will always have a home in the Igbo country.     

With this understanding it becomes clear that the kind of an Igbo-only state that we are talking about here does not mean a closeted extremist or intolerant state. No, it means a state where an oppressed and persecuted people can be and have their lives and properties and rights protected by a sovereign national power. In this Igbo state all people from anywhere in the world who are escaping oppression, persecution or any such thing can come there and find a home and refuge without discrimination. In this state – an Igbo state, people of all colors and persuasion can come to this state to dream, achieve and prosper without any hindrances so long as they keep the laws of the land and respect the rights of fellow citizens. It will be a state administered under a continually updated set of predictable rules, regulations, laws and order. It will be far removed from any state where the whims and fancies of one person or a few clique of individuals prevail.

There will never be a reason to exclude anyone who comes into the Igbo state who will be willing to live and abide by the norms of their host society.  Igbo ways and ideas are in full conformity with the universal standards and practice and all Igbo everywhere own and identify with them with pride and are ever willing to work hard at the protection, preservation and advancement of this their Igboness as a collective bequeathal to subsequent Igbo generations.

Lastly, we want to reassure all people everywhere that this pursuit to establish a safe haven (a sovereign state) for the Igbo who have always suffered resentment, persecution, discrimination and hatred in the hands of their neighbors is a just and legitimate venture and should be supported by all well-meaning individuals, governments and groups everywhere.

 

Posted on

Biafra Freedom and the Quest for Igbo Independence

Since the last nineteen years there has been a revival of the quest for the reestablishment of the defunct Republic of Biafra. Between 1967 and 1970 Biafra existed as an independent state apart from Nigeria. The boundaries of the new country were based on the colonially created former Eastern Region of Nigeria. Igbo national people were the dominant ethnic group in the region. But there were many other non-Igbo ethnic or national peoples in the new country. Because of the circumstances that necessitated the independence declaration of the country it was natural for this Biafra of 1967 to include the dominant Igbo nationals and others who are Igbo neighbors living in the contiguous surrounding lands.

Just like they did in the dysfunctional greater Nigerian country, the European colonialists who created the former Eastern Region had insensitively mixed up all the different national ethnic groups in the region for their governing convenience. Because this hotchpotch arrangement helped to minimize the running cost of the colonial outposts by cutting down on the number of staff and other incidentals it made a sound commercial sense for the non-indigenous Europeans. So, the Europeans maximized profit from their colonial venture while the indigenous peoples suffered from avoidable endemic interethnic internecine conflicts that would frustrate and stunt any form of progress.

As soon as the colonial Europeans left when they granted independence to the natives, the hitherto simmering dormant crisis busted out into uncontrollable flames. Up till now, as I write this piece, since the departure of the Europeans, interethnic and interreligious killings have constantly erupted among the native peoples who were forced by the exigencies of colonialism to exist as citizens of the same country. This is what led to the declaration of Biafran independence from Nigeria in 1967. Islamic dominated Nigeria had embarked on the mission to wipe out the Christian dominant Igbo people from the Earth. Igbo people resisted the genocidal move by declaring an independent state of Biafra from Nigeria.



This is 2018 more than half a century after, the various peoples are still engulfed in an unnecessary progress-arresting and human-lives destroying crisis because the lazy inheritors of this unviable European creation have continued to avoid facing the realities of their so-called Nigerian country. The only sensible solution to the seemingly unending Nigerian crisis is to divide the country along the existing ethnic and religious divides.

However as we stated earlier, there has been a renewed interest in carving out of Nigeria a new independent Biafra. With the new agitation came the controversy surrounding the authentic identities, territorial boundaries and social and political structures of this new quest. As all will agree, both those involved in the struggle to free Biafra from Nigeria and those watching the developments from any angle, there is no way the Biafra of 2018 will look anything like the Biafra of 1967. Nothing in this world remains static and time, it is said changes everything. Fifty years have passed since 1967 and the truth is that the conditions and circumstances that produced the first Biafra and this new Biafra are not the same.

Therefore the human identities, national boundaries and political and social structures of this new Biafra cannot be the same as those of 1967. Every new generation must fight their own wars and win or lose their own battles on their own terms. Agitating for a new Biafra based on the 1967 identities, boundaries and structures will amount to an intellectual laziness on the part of the agitators and spell the doom of the proposed new country. A new Biafra as agitated for by the Igbo does not and cannot include any non-Igbo ethnic nationals. This position cannot be overemphasized because going against it will be nothing different from the extant Nigerian disaster – the mixing of different incongruent peoples in a country that cannot work. That mistake was made by foreign powers and we rightly blame them for it. But we cannot afford to make the same mistake in the new Biafra. Doing so will be like creating a new Nigeria by another name, Biafra. The same crises that have bedeviled the present Nigeria will also dog such Biafra and destroy it.

Such a disaster can easily be avoided by creating a brand new country by Africans and for Africans based on their own native experiences and anticipations. It will be a country for the first time created by Africans and for their people on their own terms. When this is done, if the new country fails or succeeds, it will be the shame or pride of the creators – Igbo people. There will be none else to blame but the indigenous people themselves. There will not be any foreign input by sheepishly following the moribund foreign concept boundaries of the former Eastern Region of Nigeria. The absurdity of adopting the map of the old Eastern Region as the boundaries of the new Biafra is the fact that almost half of Igbo population and land on the west bank of the Niger were not included in the 1967 Biafra. There are also several Igbo populations and lands that extend beyond what many people today know as traditional Igbo land. No Igbo anywhere should or will be left behind in this new quest to reestablish an independent Igbo state.

These truths and facts serve as fundamentals that need to be clearly defined for all who care to join this Igbo liberation business so that from the onset they will have a clear picture of what they are getting into, what they should and what they should not do. With that said it does not mean that in the process of doing that that we should produce a document that is perfect and immutable. We should aim for a living document that is dynamic and in tandem with the times, events and current circumstances. Since events, circumstances and experiences seem to change very rapidly these days we can keep up by constantly reviewing and updating the contents of the working document to always reflect in real time the prevailing realities which we encounter along the way.




At this moment all those who are involved in this business need to recognize that we are at the cusp of bringing into being a brand new society, country or nation. As such we seem to have been involuntarily positioned by providence to play a special role in the history of Igbo people. We can voluntarily choose to reenact the convoluted grandiose “Zik of Africa” pipe dream by pursuing to build another clay-footed giant in the new Biafra of 2018 and jumble up a mixed bag of incongruent peoples in the name of inclusiveness. If we did this we would have fallen into the same sin we accuse Lugard, Zik and others of. Or we can choose to unashamedly reinvent our ancestral Igbo nation and proudly turn it into a viable, progressive, peaceful, prosperous and manageable modern country that is successful and serve as an inspiration to the rest of the world. Such a modern and ideal Igbo country will attract other people from around the world who would come and proudly take up citizenship in this Igbo country and will be self-propelled to honestly pay patriotic allegiance to their newly adopted country and Igboness.

It will be foolhardy of us who have the luxury of time (relative to the 1967 Biafrans) as it is, to carelessly, even naively adopt the same unworkable one-Nigerian pattern to which we are all witnesses of as a woeful epitome of a futile doomed enterprise.

At this stage (maybe at no time at all) we cannot afford to have anything to be written in stone – unchangeable and final. In the popular saying it is said that only God and fools do not change their minds. 1967 Biafra was the concept and dream of our fathers but the 2018 Biafra must be the concept and dream of the present generation of Igbo people. I personally was a firm believer in one-Biafra that would be made up of both Igbo and their neighbors (an all-inclusive Biafra.) In my simplistic thinking I believed that the so-called south-south or Niger Delta political zone should naturally be a part of the new Biafra because 1967 boundaries included those places. I wrote passionately in favor of such political arrangement in the new Biafra we are founding. I had even used such fanciful phrases like “United States of Biafra” to describe the envisaged new creation of another one-Nigeria only with a different name “Biafra.” But such phrases are thoughtless and full of “beautiful nonsense” as my friend Festus Afamefule would put it. In the last few years after some time of impassioned personal interrogation and honest empirical contemplation I concluded that in the interest of the future generations of our people that we cannot afford to construct a new country for our people whose foundation and modus vivendi is not firmly anchored in our Igboness (in who we are.) For a society to work, the people are expected to have common historical experiences, common cultural practices, common linguistic history and some other things that help to hold a people together. The saying in Igbo is that na izu ka nma na nne ji.  

Some people have come up with the question about what happens to the rest peoples some of whom also fought and died in the effort to free the first Biafra from Nigeria. Such people will need to be reminded that these other nations of indigenous peoples are capable of forming their own independent countries without Igbo as a part in their destiny. The populations of most of these ethnic nations run in several millions with so much natural and human resources that can easily sustain and make them successful. It will be stupid for any Igbo to think that they have been placed in the position of the “redemptive saviors” over these peoples who have their own innate redeemers. Everyone or ethnic people that fought under the banner and name of Biafra in 1967 and onwards are also equally entitled to adopt the name as their redemptive symbol of resistance, freedom and independence. Today that is what that name has come to represent for all peoples and persons – a universal symbol of resistance against genocide, injustice, oppression, persecution and domination. Any people or person anywhere in the world can adopt that name as their symbolic avatar in their quest for redemption, liberation, freedom and independence from anything, person or institution.

Perhaps the reason why this confusion has festered is that this movement for a new Biafra has remained like a moving train which stops to pick up all willing passengers without discrimination. Of course there should be no discrimination against all those who want to get in but the danger we have faced is that most of those who are joining the train (the Biafran train) come with so many wild, dangerous and hideous (sometimes fraudulent) notions. All come with preconceived parochial opinions on what Biafra is or what it should be. And all claim to be the final authorities in the subject. But unfortunately many of these individualized ideas about Biafra are flawed. Yet this has not stopped these misled individuals from holding very tight to their version of personalized wishful and impractical opinionated Biafranism. Having observed this dangerous trend it has become necessary that the Igbo must get together to reinvent and refocus their own standardized unique and workable Biafranism and anticipated Biafran or Igbo country. It doesn’t matter, when independence is won the new state can stick with Biafra or change its name. The other emerging new countries can also adopt the Biafran name or something else as it suits them. More than one country can go by Biafra just like Sudan and South Sudan.

 In the end a more sensible and ideal new Biafra or Igbo state should be aimed toward success. It should be one that while being careful to preserve all the great conservative aspects of Igbo cultural heritage and traditions, is also dynamic – readily embracing change and willingly directing the society to seamlessly transit into newly discovered lights with little or no frictions. If this generation followed their hearts and are willing to do the right things, this new society can work if it is founded on a non-sentimental and well-considered uncompromised realism.

 On the contrary if we want to follow the fad and adopt the “pretty boy” posture of the current wave of indiscriminate and unrealistic world dream then we will be headed for trouble. Sadly, it is this prevailing unregulated sentimental liberal ideology that has created the greatest danger that is facing our world today. It is the indiscriminate senseless implementation of this innocent-sounding idea that is threatening to revert all the progress, prosperity and freedoms which the world has thus far enjoyed to the level of the dark ages. This sentimental liberalism if left unchecked will send the world to the darkest abyss, the type that it has never seen before.

To prove the danger inherent in this psychedelic self-defeating indiscriminate all-inclusiveness; apart from the perfect example of the one-Nigerian disaster, the reader can take one hard look at Europe in its current compromised state. With the trend and rate at which Europe is traveling along this uncensored inclusiveness, Europe will be doomed. The only hope that is still open to Europe is that the current generation of Europeans must stand their ground and push back the coming darkness of Islamism. Otherwise, if nothing is done to stave off this wave of absolute evil, in the next few years Europe as we know it will be completely engulfed in a total hopeless darkness of the worst kind.

Posted on

Igbo Position on Nigerian Restructuring

The need to restructure the Nigerian state has gained a populist currency in the past few years. Especially, since the beginning of this year, 2017 it has become a consensus call coming from almost all the ethnic, political and geographical sections that make up the corporate Nigerian state. Recently the champions of this call for a new and different Nigeria have gained an overwhelming numerical strength. Therefore their voices are increasingly getting stronger, louder and urgent. The fear and seemingly mysterious fog that earlier surrounded this now deafening call for change and the enthronement of a new order seems to have suddenly cleared up. And now with a clearer picture the argument to restructure Nigeria becomes more compelling and can simply not be ignored or wished away any longer by those who traditionally oppose it.

As the days go by the rank of those in opposition of a restructured Nigeria continues to decline and pale in the face of so many incontestable and overpowering evidences in support. It has now become clear that the current Nigerian state does not and cannot work as it is presently structured. Therefore, the majority of the country’s stakeholders have finally accepted that the existing Nigerian state structure is not viable and cannot be sustained any much longer. Many genuine patriotic Nigerians are seeking for real solutions and a considerable majority tends to believe that what is needed is a Nigerian country that works on a structure where the diverse ethnical, political, religious and social units are forming a confederating union.

Nigeria currently exists on a structure that is centrally controlled or administered – a federal government. It has been like this since the military intervention in the government of the country in January, 1966. In order to effectively control the political turmoil and mayhem taking place in the Western Region of the country and forestall the unconscionable corruptive and overarching manipulations of the federal power by the politicians who wielded its reigns, the army which took power through a military coup d’état adopted the federal government structure effective immediately. During the past 50 years, practical experiences and ensuing events have shown clearly that this centralized control of natural resources and political power is not working for the country: Hence the need for something new, something different.

That something new is the now much talked about restructured Nigeria. An important highlight of this now popular and highly recommended restructuring is the fact that the advocates want much of the powers for the day to day running of the grassroots components of Nigeria to be vested in the local governments of the different contiguous regions. Restructure advocates want the federal government to be stripped of the control of much of the powers which it hitherto has. Some of those powers which are presently exclusively and entirely reposed on the federal government are natural resources control, education, law enforcement, etc. The advocates of restructure contend that they want especially the control of natural resources, law enforcement and education to be decentralized and devolved to the regional centers. Most importantly, the advocates argue that this envisaged new arrangement will enable the different regional power centers to develop and grow each at their own pace, without unduly interfering with or holding up their neighbors. It is expected that with this new arrangement the central government can exclusively control the collective national military, external affairs, some aspects of the judiciary and other matters as are determined to represent a federal Nigerian image and interests.

Basically, what most of the advocates of restructure have in mind is that they still want to preserve Nigeria as a unit – one Nigeria must exist no matter what. Perhaps, they are convinced that because the different incongruous ethnical, cultural and religious groups of peoples within the fictitious geographical enclave have stayed together long enough and successfully established amongst themselves some inseparable familial bonds. As a result, the love of country and fellow citizens has become deeply ingrained in the peoples. In their mind; by some magic the forced Nigerian marriage has finally turned into love and bliss affair and, no one should put asunder the sacred bond of one Nigeria which was joined together by foreigners – the officiating colonial British priests.

It is not difficult to see that the advocates for this new structure believe fervently that the fire of Nigeria’s national brotherly love now burns so wonderfully bright. That the peoples of this dreamed of nirvana new one Nigeria can actually build a communal fire in a faraway imaginary center and still get warmed up in their various separate semi-autonomous regions so long as they all go by the name “Nigeria.” These Nigerian patriots like some sinister manipulative spouse abusers are trying hard to impress on the different ethnical, religious and cultural Nigerian partners that they will be nothing and cannot exist without attaching themselves to the “one Nigerian” fiction. In this way the manipulating restructure advocates believe they have sufficiently convinced the irreconcilable peoples and that they now believe that they cannot exist on their own if they did not append themselves to the one Nigerian elixir.

The ethnic Igbo people of eastern Nigeria are a part of this present Nigerian union. When the time comes, Igbo people are also expected to form a part of this proposed restructured one Nigeria. But for some obvious and fundamental reasons the Igbo cannot possibly be a part of this planned new Nigeria, no matter how attractive. On the 29th of May 1966 the Igbo renounced forever their Nigerian citizenship. On that date Nigeria as a state and its other citizens began to ethnically cleanse Nigeria of its Igbo inhabitants. Subsequently, the outrageous hate induced Nigerian mass murder and expulsion of the Igbo from the country was advanced further. After the Igbo had been successfully expelled from Nigeria, the Nigerian state and all its citizens embarked on a premeditated genocidal war campaign against the escaped Igbo nation. Nigeria’s declared intention at the outset of the war was to wipe out the Igbo as a people from the Earth. Nigeria actively pursued that goal by mustering a viscous merciless host of men and machines and attacked the Igbo in their ancestral homeland where they ran to take refuge. Consequently, a quarter of Igbo population was murdered by the Nigerian state. Of the 3.5 million easterners or former Biafrans murdered by Nigeria, 3.1 of them were Igbo people.

Fifty years since this grievous atrocity, the Nigerian state and all its other citizens have consistently refused to acknowledge any wrongdoing. Instead Nigeria and Nigerians have remorselessly maintained that the heinous genocide of the Igbo should not be counted as crime. Thus emboldened, since the past fifty years Nigeria has pursued systematic state policies that are geared toward the persecution, the marginalization and exclusion of the ethnic Igbo from the Nigerian social, political and economic affairs. The ultimate aim of everything of course is to finally exterminate the Igbo. Truly, the unrepentant Nigerian program of the genocide of the Igbo remains an enduring project.

For these and other reasons, the Igbo have resolved that they will not have any part in the proposed restructured new country of Nigeria. The Igbo have unambiguously stated that they are not interested in going into any union with any other national group in Nigeria. Therefore, while the Igbo wish Nigeria and Nigerians well in their quest to finding a workable solution to their national problem, the Igbo have unequivocally opted for a separate Igbo identity and the separation of their territory from the Nigerian state.