Seven years have passed since that resurgence, and the storm has only grown stronger. The chants have gone digital, the grievances sharper, and the government’s response still as always defensive, dismissive, and deaf. The IPOB movement continues to resonate across eastern streets and diaspora channels, but the internal cracks are now louder. Who exactly is included in this second coming of Biafra? The geography has expanded, but consensus has shrunk.
Because, as the country runs from office to office in confusion, there is greater confusion among the ‘Biafrans’ themselves. The question of identity is still not solved. Dissenting voices rise every day from the many tribes of the Niger Delta. Here and there, they always throw up that exclusion threat to the Igbos: we are not Biafrans. How can this help the cause?
What are the core Biafrans doing about it? If, after fifty years, the mistake of Ojukwu is not corrected, what is the guarantee that this new age agitation will end differently? What makes us think that Kanu will not end up in history books as the second Ojukwu, who did not win Biafra?
Referendum for Whom?
Biafra may have the international sympathy it lacked in the ’60s. It may even have the digital organisation and cultural momentum. But referendum for whom, particularly? That question cannot be answered without addressing identity and geography.
Suppose those dissenting voices are not being listened to or followed up on in the backdrop of the bigger agitation, which I believe is not being done until it becomes unavoidable. Is the whole agitation not a case of a debtor begging his creditor for life while annihilating those who owe him?
Many have said Nigeria has remained one in terms of the northern Hausa/Fulani hegemony, which has caused national disaffections. Fair point. But will Biafra then become a country of the East and South on Igbo terms? What is worth doing is worth doing well.
I reckon there is no better time for Biafra to be born. And, as a Niger Deltan, despite the biases and archetypal views my people have for the Igbos, I am not bothered about which country I belong to. I am currently a Nigerian, a patriotic one at that. But there is nothing I have particularly gained from the government, so to speak.
I didn’t receive the best education because I couldn’t afford to attend a private institution or travel abroad. All my life, I’ve seen generator-generated power, even to keep my phone alive or to blend pepper, that is, if I’m too weak to use the mortar.
I drink well water from the same land polluted by oil activities, or borehole water we dug ourselves, except when I have money for ‘pure’ water, or I’m a big boy with bottled water. Getting a job was a struggle after my university years. Prices of commodities have never been at a fair level. Security agents would rather harass me with their government-given guns than become a refuge.
My roads break the bones of the car before they break the tyres. My home suffers from environmental erosion, oil spillage, and policy silence. So, whether I end up a Biafran or remain a Nigerian is not a big deal to me, except that, as it is, it seems my people and I are being conscripted into another country, the same way 1914 made us Nigerians without our opinion.
It is either the Biafran Map is restructured (now that’s funny) to fit only the Igbos, or the core agitators embark on far-reaching consultations with the southern tribes. There needs to be an agreement among the South and the Igbos on the political structure of Biafra. Only then can the fears and suspicions be doused. Only then can there be one voice for the referendum.
Nigeria remains economically dependent on the Niger Delta, and if they join forces, Nigeria will be severely impacted. But what is being done? There has to be a unity of purpose. Otherwise, this call for a referendum sounds to the southerners like another Berlin Conference amalgamation reborn. Without the proper thing done, the whole Biafra or burst is a jamboree. I know my head will go for such utterance, but I think it has become a case of ajeku iyaloje (forgive my spelling).
A Fire Burning Wet Things
The current wave of the agitation, albeit strong and resolute, seems like a fire burning wet things. By the time the fire is quenched, one would find some tiny things unburnt because the one who set it thought all was dry.
The foundational things, seemingly unimportant, must be taken into consideration, handled and positively dusted before other things are gone. Agitators must know who the Biafrans are before agitating for Biafra; right now, the cart is still before the horse.
We must remember that Isaac Adaka-Boro had once declared a Niger Delta Republic, long before Biafra was conceived. That secession attempt was both out of anger against the Nigerian federal government and against the Eastern Region government. Over the years, the political hate for the latter has accumulated, built into a bigger and careless disrespect for the Igbos. That bias must be fixed. That hate must be cast away.
And the best way? A consultation table, whether round or square.
Meanwhile, while we debate whether all the southerners are Biafrans, there are still voices in the east pushing for restructuring. Another group wants Igbo presidency, restructured or not. So, three divergent demands from the same people, Biafra, restructuring, and presidency, which also raises the question: among the Igbos themselves, who are the Biafrans?
Referendum or no referendum, the identity and geographical issue must be put to bed, once and for all.
Southern politicians often claim that the North is holding the country hostage. But rather than waste every other person’s time with an ill-prepared agitation, why not channel that grievance into a successful restructuring and force the northern cabals into releasing the political reins of this nation?
That, I believe, will be more beneficial and more efficient. Yours sincerely.
