THE AFTERMATH OF A NEW BIAFRA

Biafra separatists must seek to federate Nigeria, not to actualise Biafra, argues Nnamdi Ebo

Aftermath is the consequences or aftereffects of a significant unpleasant event. The event refers to the agitations for the actualisation of Biafra. Biafra separatists seek to have their Biafra through a cacophony of deafening alarm bells: a referendum, plebiscite or secession. BIAFRA is a state proclaimed in 1967, when it was part of eastern Nigeria, inhabited chiefly by the Igbo people, and sought independence from Nigeria. In the ensuing civil war the new state’s troops were overwhelmed by militarily superior forces, and by 1970 it had ceased to exist.

This treatise seeks to reveal “the day after” in the Biafra separatists’ new Biafra. Suffice it to say that every aftermath comes with its own grim or problematic reality, especially when faced with the realities of real life situations. “New Biafra” will be inhabited by Igbo who have never been united or agreed on anything in Nigeria – whether it is their leadership (Ohanaeze Ndigbo), affinity, politics, the economy, socio-cultural/customary or tribal identity.

Who is or what is Igbo or who is an Igbo? It is a given that no Igbo was an autochthon or autochthonous inhabitant of present-day Igboland pre-antiquity. There are conflicting historical accounts of Igbo origin. One, Nri kingdom from 900 AD was administered by a priest-king called Eze Nri; contrary to the cliché: “Igbo has no king”. Two, waves of immigrant communities from the north and west planted themselves on the border of a core area in the ninth century. This core area – Owerri, Orlu and Okigwe – formed a belt, and the people have no tradition of coming from anywhere else. Three, inferiority-mentality preceded Igbo claims of Jewish lineage but migrations from the core area occurred in all directions and in this way Igbo culture gradually homogenised. After this homogenisation, the Onicha Ado N’Idu entered Igbo territory in the 16th century AD from the kingdoms of Benin and Igala.

Many of these people still exhibit different characteristics from that of the traditional Igbos – for example geographical marginality, the institution of kingship and a hierarchical title system. For some time, some Igbo-speaking peoples claimed that they were not Igbo. The word was used as a term of abuse for “less cultured” neighbours. The word is now used in three senses, to describe Igbo territory, domestic speakers of the language and the language spoken by them. I narrated these concise histories to open the door into new Biafra under assumed actualisation.

The sunset on Nigeria’s first republic saw Igbo camaraderie manifested as they felt rejected and despised after a failed coup d’état, a pogrom and exodus (1966-1967). In these circumstances and after a lost power tussle, Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu declared Biafra on May 30, 1967. There is always tension between illusion and reality. The realities of old Biafra did not manifest because Ojukwu seceded in the throes of militarisation of eastern region with his isolated military government. Old Biafra existed to the extent it had a semblance of statehood (1967-1970). However, weeks into

IF ANYBODY THINKS THAT THE IGBO HAVE TROUBLE IN NIGERIA NOW, WAIT AND SEE TROUBLE IN THE NEW BIAFRA. NO ANAMBRA MAN WILL LET AN ENUGU MAN BE PRESIDENT, NO IMO MAN WILL LET AN ABIA MAN OR EBONYI MAN BE PRESIDENT, NO SOUTHWEST IGBO ‘IJEKEEBÉ’ WILL ALLOW A NORTHEAST IGBO ‘WAWA’ TO BECOME PRESIDENT

the unprepared and embattled republic, the illusion of Igbo camaraderie vamoosed.

Old Biafra, in all ramifications, was a military dictatorship forced to defend its “territorial integrity” in a fratricidal war. How this militarised structure would have fared in the event that old Biafra had won the war and become an independent country is left to conjecture. By any stretch of imagination, if new Biafra comes into being, this time under non-militarised circumstances, the situation will still be predictable considering antecedents of the Igbo.

Biafra separatists “revealed” the future aftermath of new Biafra in two predictably frightening ways. IPOB militarised the new “Biafra Security Service” (BSS), even before Biafra’s actualisation, and I ruminated on the fate of new Biafra’s already militarised milieu. MASSOB formulated an “ideology” stating that wherever Igbo resides and does business in Nigeria is Biafra, and I wondered which milieu of statehood covers that territorial jurisdiction.

I now transport myself back to the future of new Biafra, and as I cogitated: “who will be the first appointed, chosen, godfathered, or “elected” president, prime minister, premier or dictator of landlocked Biafra?” Biafra leadership struggle for power will mimic South Sudan. South Sudan gained independence from Sudan after two bitter civil wars in 2011. Two years later, into the new republic, another civil war caused by power struggle from within began in 2013, between forces of the new government and opposition forces. I am convinced that established fault lines between different Igbo sub-ethnic groups will arise.

Political reality will dawn on every “Biafran”. Biafra is an antecedent-illusion, a brand, a deceptive appearance or impression of reality. On the other hand, reality is mindsetBiafra personified, or the state of Biafra as it actually existed, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of Biafra: a country that needs to be experienced or lived. The aftermath of new Biafra will be the harsh realities of life in a new country, and these harsh realities will manifest in the first week, if not days, of the new “republic”.

If anybody thinks that the Igbo have trouble in Nigeria now, wait and see trouble in the new Biafra. No Anambra man will let an Enugu man be president, no Imo man will let an Abia man or Ebonyi man be president, no southwest Igbo “Ijekeebé” (stereotype for Anambra/Onitsha axis Igbo) will allow a northeast Igbo “wawa” (stereotype for Enugu/ Nsukka axis Igbo) to become president. The aftermath of “Biafran independence” with Igbo inside Biafra vis-à-vis Igbo inside Nigeria is akin to a chasm between rich and poor. The concept of Biafra is unarguably a major sojourn of the Igbo in Nigeria. It should be confined to the realms of revolutions in a chronicle, to be left where it belongs: in the annals of historical, sentimental interest, and reverence, for posterity. Biafra separatists must seek to federate Nigeria, not to actualise Biafra.