Shehu Musa Yar’Adua
Center, Abuja
Conference on Biafra: 50
Years After
25 May, 2017
Dr. Hakeem Baba-Ahmed, OON
Chief of Staff to President of the Senate, Federal Republic of
Nigeria.
I am Biafran
With ten minutes to
discuss the vital element of reconciliation following the defeat of Biafra and
the end of the Nigerian Civil war, I have taken the liberty to tap into the
broad context of this important conference to discuss reconciliation as a
strategic process and goal in post-war Nigeria, and a major issue in
nation-building.
The key elements of the
post-war reconciliation programme derived from an enlightened leadership
perspective which acknowledged the value of re-integration of former
territories and populations under Biafra into a nation that had fought a
reluctant civil war. They included a specific renunciation of victory in the
“no –victor-no-vanquished” policy, the deliberate promotion of policies that
discouraged punitive action against active rebels and populations; absorption
of public servants from former rebel territories into Nigerian institutions,
and the aggressive campaigns to encourage communities to re-absorb people from
former rebel territories. The most effective reconciliation instrument,
however, required neither legislation nor clout of the Nigerian state. It was
the spontaneous and genuine responses of millions of Nigerians to move beyond a
3-year disaster by opening doors and hearts to people trapped behind hostility,
as well as the courage and faith to venture into territories and locations
where thousands had been murdered only for their ethnic origins.
In the disastrous
collapse of a vital national asset which is our capacity to adopt versions of
our history that will survive massive and sustained onslaught by ignorance,
mischief and the surrender of strategic grounds by political leaders and
academics, it has become difficult to remember that Nigerians achieved the
unique record of reconciling with each other within the shortest period, quite
possibly in recent human history.
What happened to that
nation that made it possible for Easterners to return to reclaim properties in
most parts of Nigeria; to resume jobs and interrupted education; to establish social
relations and live secure and productive lives within a year after the war?
What happened to the nation that made room for Igbo traders and businessmen to
resume places of pride in Lagos, Kano and Maiduguri; the Hausa communities to
re-locate back to Onitsha and Aba; and for young people to learn of the history
of a potentially great nation that had derailed but found its feet in the early
1970s?
My answers to the these
questions are likely to feed the dispute over every element of our history, but
they are no worse than strands that feed the lower rungs of the muck that is
our history by social media and miniature champions with pretensions for
fighting great causes. First, the coup of January 15 1966 was never planned
with secession of the East in mind. By all accounts, it was intended to address
serious national challenges, not to pull parts out of the nation. It was a
misadventure motivated by flawed idealism, almost juvenile approach and fatal
miscalculations. It was an event that created other events and developments
which compounded its disastrous consequences. Second, the Biafra option had no
strong organic roots. It was the product and reaction to tragic events, and was
by no means the only option available to the Igbo and other communities in the
Eastern States. It is difficult to read those parts of our history which record
the plans by young Northern officers to pull the North out of the federation
after the successful July 1967 counter coup. Biafra represented a knee-jerk
reaction from Igbo elite as it competed with other elements of the Nigerian
elite following the disasters triggered by the January 1966 coup. The pace of
reconciliation and reintegration was evidence of the limitations of these elite
competitions, and the end of the war was treated by all Nigerians largely as an
end to a tragic chapter.
The Nigerian civil war
was, in many senses, also a referendum on the continued existence of the
Nigerian state. The outcome was not a win or loss: it was the manner Nigerians
reconciled with each other, licked wounds and moved on. But the idea of Biafra
was a cause for redress and resistance and it neither began with events between
1966 and 1970, nor has it ended with them. The military that triggered the
collapse of the democratic process, fought a war against itself, and led the
nation through a remarkable recovery then embarked on major political
re-engineering, managing an emerging rentier economy and a developing
middle class.
Plunder and patronage of
huge resources that were not related to direct productive activities created
massive instability at elite levels. Managing the Nigerian state became fraught
with crises and instability, and widening gaps between wealth and poverty began
to create pockets of discontent as the leadership grappled with large urban
populations living off the state and small, powerful and wealthy elite.
The Nigerian state
failed to develop institutions and values that will mitigate the type of
circumstances which produced Biafra and the civil war. During its long tenures
in power, the military fought against itself, and discouraged the emergence of
a political system which could have mediated conflicts around power and
resources by the elite. At every turn, the state was challenged by problems it
created. Between 1966 and 1999,the military was unable to stay outside
power for longer than 4 years, a brief period which significantly highlighted
the total re-integration of Igbo elite into the Nigerian political process.
The military factor in
Nigerian political history has been prominent and damaging, and hopefully, will
come to an end with the expiration of President Buhari’s presidency. Every
major political development since January 1966 has had a major military
imprint, and no leadership has emerged at the national and largely sub-national
levels without the direct or discreet influence of military actors. This legacy
has stunted the growth and development of democratic values and institutions,
and has created multiple sources of grievances and conflicts that give the
impression of Nigeria as a nation of multiple causes and few solutions.
The emergence of a
political leadership without roots or linkages with a military tradition will
signify a major reconciliation in the rapture which begun on January 15, 1966.
The nation has survived many Biafras in the past, and it needs to come to terms
with these challenges in their proper contexts. The resistance against the
abortion of the elections that may have produced an Abiola presidency; the
resistance of the communities in many parts of the South South against abuse
and neglect; the resistance of many communities across the entire nation
against neglect, attacks, abuse and marginalization; the unacceptable levels of
collapse of basic infrastructure in the East; the scandalous
de-industrialization and pauperization of the entire north; the disaster
arising from incompetence and official collusion in the growth and development
of Boko Haram insurgency; the unfolding, global-scale humanitarian disaster in
the North East are all Biafran causes. In a real sense, every Nigerian is a
Biafran.
There is enough depth
and breadth in the Nigerian nation to survive these challenges, but it will be
dangerous to be complacent. We will never live entire periods without a major
cause demanding to be addressed, but we can improve our capacities to live
with, and resolve them. We need to confront challenges with understanding and
sensitivity, from positions that are strengthened by cohesion, concensus and
willingness to compromise. The new Biafran phenomenon, for instance, needs to
be looked in the eye to understand what it means or needs. Neither running away
from it,locking it up or shooting at it will resolve the dispute over whether
those who wish to pull all Igbo out of Nigeria have the support and mandate of
all Igbo. Nor should the nation lower its voice over its stand that no group or
section can muscle or shoot its way out of the nation, or re-structure Nigeria
after its own image alone. Recent successes over the Boko Haram insurgency point
to the value of national concensus and political will in dealing with internal
challenges. The democratic process needs to be strengthened as the foundation
of national unity and cohesion, and the guarantee that only a leadership which
enjoys a legitimate and popular support can take difficult decisions to deal
with challenges. There is not a single sensible reason why Nigerians should not
discuss every element of our existence, the structures and institutions which
affect us in profound ways, and even the utility of our union. It is, however
important to acknowledge that every community has a right to be respected, and
its participation in the search for solutions around the fundamentals of our
co-existence cannot be forced or hijacked.
There are many lessons to
draw from the half century after Biafra. One is that the Nigerian nation is a
lot more resilient than it gets credit for in many circles, and this resilience
lies in the millions of linkages in livelihoods, economy and relationships
which Nigerians have built with their feet, resources, trust and lives in every
inch of our nation. The second is that Nigeria will always be tested and tried
by challenges arising from the manner groups feel their rights and privileges
are handled either by the state itself, or by other groups. It is important
therefore to strive towards creating a nation founded on democratic principles
and practice, and in particular, on the rule of law. Thirdly we need to
re-integrate younger Nigerians into a vision of a nation whose history has been
both inspiring and challenging, but a nation which can be made to work for all.
We need to liberate our history from petty hate mongers; not to put a false
gloss on it, but to challenge this generation to improve where older generations
have failed, and take pride in their legacies. Without this history, there is
little hope of securing the firm foundations that will survive
contemporary and future challenges in Nigeria.
