RESURGENCE OF THE BIAFRA STRUGGLE

“Affirming your trust and confidence in me; having mandated me to proclaim on your behalf and in your name , that eastern Nigeria be an independent sovereign state; I, Lt. col. Chukwuemeka Ojukwu, the military governor of eastern Nigeria , by virtue of the authority and in pursuant to the principles recited above, do solemnly proclaim that the region and territory known as and called Eastern Nigeria, together with her continental self and territorial waters, shall henceforth be an independent republic with the name and the title the republic of Biafra.”


These were the exact words of late Dim Chukwuemeka odumegwu Ojukwu on that fateful Sunday, May 30, 1967. When circumstances compelled him to formally pull the then eastern region out of Nigeria in the height of the face-off between the General Yakubu Gowon-led federal government and the Eastern Regional Government.

This proclamation marked the emergence of the word “Biafra” in the Nigeria’s political lexicon. The immediate consequences of the said proclamation are all now history. However, happening of recent times have shown us that the very ideological content of the name “Biafra” is itself far from becoming history, it has arguably become a powerful rally point for the people of the south-east Nigeria in the continued inter-ethnic rivalry that has defined the Nigeria’s socio-political sphere from the outset.

Hence, the name Biafra came ringing again when in the wake of the democratic governance in May 1999, Chief Ralph Uwazurike founded the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB); and more recently, the Nnamdi Kanu-led Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) with their controversial propaganda mouthpiece, Radio Biafra, once again sang the old disturbing tune.

So much dust has been raised by this resurgence of the Biafra ideology. While the federal government of Nigeria, has remained oppositional to the Biafra Idea, other ethnic groups traditionally locked in inter-ethnic rivalry with each other have been unfriendly to the idea.
However, beyond the controversies represented by the resurgence of Biafra, as deeper reflection on the trend of events reveals that the Biafra phenomena is more of a symptom than a disease. It is a symptom of a sickness that has long befallen a nation. Also to be included as part of the symptoms of this ailment are other centrifugal forces as represented by groups like Niger Delta militants etc.

This ailment is the failure of the state ideology; the emptying of the myth on which the Nigeria state is founded. Every state is founded on a myth, the myth of the state ought to keep appealing to people’s sentiments; and like every ideology, the ideology of the state ought to keep making meaning to people’s worldview – if not such myth, such ideology must have outlived its usefulness an thus due far repudiation and replacement. Stated differently, if the people must continue to see the state as their protector, as their provider, as their defender, as their moral guide, and as the ultimate dispenser of justice, the state ought to be able to credibly fulfil these roles; it has to live up to its dignity and justify the pre-eminence conferred on it. Just as Igbo say, “mmanwu daa n’ogbo, ugwu ya aruo” (if masquerade falls in in the public, its dignity disappear).

The fact is that Nigeria having failed in the fundamental duties of a state to its citizens, has negated the very ideology of a state; hence the country has rendered itself liable to negation in order to restore the real statehood. In this sense, MASSOB, IPOB, MEND etc., are forces of negation seeking to negate the negation called Nigeria. Biafra is a mere incarnation of a spirit; spirit of protest or negation against the aberration (negation) of statehood which Nigeria has overcome. As spirit, it cannot be killed; supress it, it will take another body, but will continue to assert itself. Seeking to stop these groups through suppression will amount to treating the symptom as against the ailment.