Civil War: Greatest injustice to Igbo and Way Forward

By Simon Njoku

The United States of America, USA President, Donald Trump, has said again and again that the war between Russia and Ukraine was avoidable. Recently, he criticized Ukrainian President Zelensky for deceiving the US to sink over $200 billion in the war without expected returns.
He has also chided the European Union, EU for aligning with Ukraine to fight Russia for refusing to allow Ukraine to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO.
And, rked by the role played by Britain in all these, Trump had told the European nation and its long-standing ally, Britain to choose between Europe and its allies. In response, the British Prime Minister, Starmer said he would choose both

Trump’s position on the Russian — Ukrainian War is not different from the stance of many well meaning local and international observers on the Nigerian–Biafran Civil War of 1967 — 1970. That is, it was an avoidable war. How?
Former Nigerian Military President, Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, IBB, explains:
“General Yakubu Gowon ‘s failure to secure and protect the lives and properties of the Igbos in the North forced Col. Emeka Ojukwu to declare the secession of the Eastern Region from Nigeria in May, 1967, leading to the fratricidal Nigerian — Biafran civil war”.”
Babangida succinctly declared the underlying fact about the war which previous Nigerian leaders, and commentators had shied away from.

General Babangida further revealed in his book, “A Journey in Service” recently launched in Abuja:
“1966 Igbo Coup: A junior Igbo officer killed His Boss who was a senior Igbo officer in front of his pregnant wife for Awolowo And For The Betterment Of Nigeria.” This depicts the great love and patriotism of the average Igbo man for Nigeria, his fatherland.

Like Ukraine, Eastern Nigeria or Biafra suffered large scale destruction with millions of lives lost in the war.

As Babangida pointed out above, if General Yakubu Gowon had taken steps to secure and protect Igbo lives and property in the North, the war could have been averted. One would ask, was it difficult for Gowon to deploy soldiers and policemen to the hotspots to quell the violence? The answer is No.
He didn’t because the counter coup that brought Gowon to power dubbed the preceding one an “Igbo Coup”. They gave the dog a bad name in order to kill it.
Yet, as many writers on the coup and the consequent civil war had variously pointed out in their works, the labelling of January, 1966 coup as an Igbo Coup was and is still an act of injustice against the Igbo.
Babangida boldly reveals in his book that it was an Igbo officer, Major John Obienu who crushed the January, 1966 coup.
He adds:
“As a young officer who saw all of this from a distance, probably ethnic sentiments did not drive the original objective of the coup plotters.
” For instance, the head of the plotters, Major Kaduna Nzeogwu, was only “Igbo” in name. Born and raised in Kaduna, his immigrant parents were from Okpanam in today’s Delta State, which, in 1966, was in the old Mid-Western Region. Nzeogwu spoke fluent Hausa and was as ” Hausa” as any. He and his original team probably thought, even naively, that they could turn things around for the better in the country.”

Like other writers, Babangida also listed the commanders and leaders of the January 1966 Coup, popularly known as the ” Igbo Coup” as: Kaduna Nzeogwu — Delta; Adewale Ademoyega — Yoruba; Capt. G. Adeleke — Yoruba; Lt. Fola Oyewole — Yoruba; Emmanuel Ifeajuna — Igbo; Lt. Tijani Katsina — Hausa; Capt. Gibson Jalo — Niger Delta and Lt. O. Olafemiyan — Yoruba.
This shows that the coup plotters came from different parts of the nation, meaning that they were national in terms of spread or cut across ethnic nationalities.

In the book , IBB spoke from position of knowledge, being an insider and one who by virtue of the offices he had occupied had access to top confidential documents. One can say that General Babangida’s book currently appears to have revealed more facts about the January 1966 Coup and the Civil War than many others before it.
It has made known to the nation and the entire world that “Igbo Coup” was just a label given to a dog in order to hang it. In other words, it was like an instrument deployed by people clandestinely targeting the Igbo for persecution and destruction.

Babangida attributed the ethnic colouration of the coup to perhaps the killing of the Saduana of Sokoto, Sir Ahmadu Bello and his wife.
But, they were not the only ones killed during the putsch.

The labelling of the coup as an “Igbo Coup” by the authorities is the root cause of the injustices against the Igbo nation. It laid the foundation for the marginalization, dehumanization and exploitation of the Igbo in the nation called Nigeria and the Civil War thrust upon them by the Nigerian authorities.

Importantly, it created the atmosphere for the physical and spiritual exit of the Igbo from Nigeria. Arguably, Nigeria won the war but has not won the peace, almost 55 years after the war, because it compelled the soul of the Igbo to exit the Union. Is it surprising that about 55 years since the war ended, Nigeria is still groping in the dark, going round and round, recording no meaningful progress. A house founded on injustice and falsehood can never stand the test of time. It shows that without the Igbo Nigeria cannot move forward. It is therefore evident that the Igbo is that critical leg in the three- legged tripod without which the others cannot stand. Check:

Since the end of the Civil War, the governments that made some progress were those that deeply involved the Igbo. The Babangida, Obasanjo and Jonathan administrations are notable examples.

A school of thought holds that the term “Igbo Coup” was popularized by Britain and the British media to whip up international sentiments against the Igbo and Biafra. This paved the way for Britain to launch itself back into the affairs of Nigeria with eyes on the rich oil and gas fields of Eastern Nigeria or Biafra.
Note that oil was discovered in commercial quantity at Oloibiri near Port Harcourt, in the Eastern Region, in 1959, about the time Nigeria was preparing for independence from Britain. Britain ensured it handed over power through a rigged election to Northern Nigerian leaders who would serve as its puppets. The crises that erupted in Nigeria shortly after independence had been traced to British clandestine schemes to project its interests in Nigeria.

In other words, General Yakubu Gowon was simply a British stooge. Britain used him to promote and accomplish its objectives in Eastern Nigeria. It got easily what it would not have gotten with Nnamdi Azikiwe and other Eastern Region leaders in command or with Odumegwu Ojukwu at the helm.

It may really be a case of misplaced aggression holding Gowon fully responsible for what transpired before, during and after the civil war. Volumes of documents including individual accounts of the role of Britain in all these abound.

Questions are asked as to why Britain chose a Christian northerner, Gowon, over Muslim officers in the military at that point in time. That is an issue that General Gowon himself may explain in his own book someday.
Gowon may also explain who called him from the British Embassy in Nigeria as he was about boarding aircraft back to Nigeria after a meeting with Odumegwu Ojukwu in Aburi, Ghana, instructing him not to honour the agreement reached with Ojukwu at the meeting! The ignoble role of Britain in Nigeria ‘s affairs is everywhere in the public domain.

Way Forward

Since the label of “Igbo Coup” gained traction in Nigeria, things have never been the same in the country for the Igbo. The Igbo man is deprived of his rights as a bonafide citizen of his country. He is discriminated against in the distribution of political patronage, economic and social amenities. Every policy seems aimed at emasculating him of his right to existence in this country. The numerous police and military check points at every nook and cranny of Igboland or Biafra attest to this. It is like Nigeria is in perpetual fear of the Igbo and the Igbo is also in perpetual fear of Nigeria.

The way Forward therefore is for Britain to let Nigeria go. The game is over. Dictating for Nigeria from behind the scene can no longer be condoned. Even the global community now understands better Britain’s meddlesome diplomacy and double standards in Nigeria.

As a way of undoing the wrongs of the past, Britain should encourage and persuade its Nigerian partners to organize a Nigeria-wide referendum supervised by the United Nations, UN, among the six geopolitical zones in the country on self-determination. Those that choose to remain in the union would remain while those that choose to leave should be granted their sovereignty. In this regard, cognizance is taken of the Amalgamation Treaty of 1914 that brought Northern and Southern Nigeria together and which had a lifespan of 100 years. This treaty expired in 1914 and requires a second look. The referendum is one way of re-evaluating it.

This is also another way of remedying the injustice meted out to the Igbo — giving them a chance to fully come back to the Union or to opt out. The body language of Nigerian leaders and their policies since the end of the Civil War indicate that the Igbo are no longer part of Nigeria.

Conclusion
When Trump called out Britain to choose between Europe and its allies, he spoke out of the avalanche of information available to him. He understands Britain. He was perhaps amazed that a long-standing ally like Britain could connive with EU members to hoodwink aged former President Joe Biden to commit stupendous US resources into a war from which the United States would expect no returns. Come on, who will believe that Britain and Europe did not have eyes on Russian and Ukrainian gas fields? They wouldn’t have gone into that war just for the sake of Ukraine’s membership of NATO. While America expended billions of dollars on the war, EU nations could barely meet the stipulated defense budgets. Now, Trump wants Ukraine to foot America’s humongous financial exposures in the war with Ukraine ‘s mineral resources. ( It’s like Trump has aborted a “European Berlin Conference” on Russia and Ukraine that was loading. Cast your mind back to the European Berlin Conference of 1886 that partitioned Africa. Europe is not done with Africa yet. Having failed in Russia and Ukraine, no thanks to Trump, their attention may shift to Nigeria.
The challenge before Nigerian leaders is facing Europe with or without the Igbo.)

However, Britain cannot make same claim on Nigeria as Trump has made on Ukraine. Britain must have recovered whatever it spent prosecuting the war for Nigeria by now, some 55 years after the war.

Furthermore, Britain should apologize to the Igbo race for false propaganda against the Igbo nation by the British media before, during and after the 1967 — 1970 Civil War which exposed the Igbo to global opprobrium and domestic hatred, persecution, genocide and alienation.

Simon Njoku, February, 2025.