Table of Contents
The consideration that Southeast/South-South is marginally included in Nigeria's mainstream politics is debatable. This paper argues that the marginalization of the Southeast of Nigeria was the reason for the civil strife that led to the blown-out war.
Biafra - who are they?
Historically, the Republic of Biafra
was an unrecognized country in West Africa from 1967 –1970. Territorially, it
covers over 29,848 square miles of land. It shared boundaries with Nigeria in
the north and west, and with Cameroon in the east, and its coast was on the
Gulf of Guinea in the south.
Today, former Biafra is made up of
the following Nigerian states, namely: Abia, Anambra, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross
River, Ebonyi, Enugu, Imo, and Rivers. Delta state wasn’t included during the late
Biafran’s leader Odumegwu Ojukwu's decree founding Biafra, however, the Igbo-speaking areas of today’s Delta state fought on the Biafran side.
Some have argued that the development
of the spirit of nationhood of Biafra was because of political repercussions following the long-term economic and political marginalization of the
southeast, and south-south of current Nigeria’s political map. It arose
because of the nonchalance and indifference of Nigerian-northern leaders to the
cultural spite and savagery against them that threatens their freedom, liberty,
life, property, and health. The bad blood on all sides mechanizes
incompatibility.
Nigeria as
diverse as it is, Biafrans then were, and the south-east/south-south today are
construed as peripheral people. Some blames have been apportioned to the
mix-match of 1914 which has been described as a chaotic political montage—a
contradiction. Why? Because it was a politics based on convenience and gains, a
‘cut and paste.’
Nigeria as a country did not have the
opportunity to discuss who they were before they were roped up together for
economic and political convenience.
Politics of ‘Cut and Paste’
Nigeria as a country can be likened to
the allegory of water and oil. Both elements do not mix but they can co-exist.
Oil will always be on top and water below. Oil and water cannot and will not
revolt against each other because they are elements that can’t make enemies.
Water can tolerate the oil being on top and oil can understand the burden water
bears by being below. With this understanding and interdependent self-realizations, they can be together not without some compromises.
In Nigeria’s political structure, some
geo-political areas have considered themselves as the oil that will always sit
on top of the water. Even though, the oil which has been Nigeria’s mainstay since
its discovery is produced in the southeast/south-south.
The politics of ‘cut and paste’ or the
allegory of ‘water and oil’ as noted above sounds like the method used by the
colonialists to create Nigeria. When Lord Lugard was appointed governor in 1912
to replace Walter Egerton, already there was Southern Nigeria, a British
protectorate formed in 1900 from the union of the Niger Coast Protectorate.
Eventually, Lagos colony was added to it in 1906 giving it the name the Colony
and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria. At Lugard’s behest in 1914, southern
Nigeria and northern Nigeria were merged as one single entity, thereby
forming the colony of Nigeria.
The reason for
the amalgamation was that the administration wanted to use the budget surpluses
in southern Nigeria to support the budget deficit in the north. For sheer
economic reasons, and for the administration’s convenience, they overlooked all
barriers and warnings of political contentions and incompatibilities for a
subtle imperial overture.
Amorphous Amalgamation
The unification did not go down well
because of the different peoples’ ways of seeing reality. The administrators of
the southern province saw the amalgamation as an opportunity to expand the
empire while those in the northern province construed it as disadvantageous to
their interests because they had made less progress than the southern province.
Therefore,
they were determined to resist the southern province’s influences and culture
in the north. Then, it was tribal affinities. Today, it is the same tribal
connections with added outright Machiavellian maneuvers, instead of
diversity, equality, and inclusion.
The attitude and mentality did not stop
after the independence (1960) of Nigeria from Great Britain. The same culture
of resistance towards the South in everything political, economic, and social
continued. The South claims that they are left on the periphery and are not
recognized nor respected in matters affecting their lives, property, freedom, and
liberty.
Consequently, the Biafrans revolted in
1967 seeking autonomy or independence, and were brutally crushed by the
Nigerian army. They were known as an unrecognized country in West Africa.
Today, the same cry for freedom and liberty is heard in every nook and cranny of its heartland. They would like to be recognized as an independent country. If the UN really values peacebuilding, this type of cry for freedom is better resolved in peaceful times than when the people have sunk themselves in conflicts and wars. Every cry for freedom and liberty should be investigated by the UN if it holds true to the principle of self-determination.
Comments