For the purpose of this discourse, I shall do two things. I will present in plain and simple diction. And I have divided the struggle for a sovereign Biafra Republc under three movements. There is the defeated Gen. Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu effort (Biafra 1.0), which lasted between 1967 and 1970. This is followed by Ralph Uwazuruike’s legal and constitutional surge (Biafra 2.0) that is still playing in the background. And now, we are experiencing the wave by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu (Biafra 2.1) after he broke away from the Uwazuruike movement.

I shall not worry much about Biafra 1.0 because it has already passed into history, although that history has yet to be objectively written. And I will only say a word or two about Biafra 2.0 because it achieved a significant milestone. Uwazuruike’s legal and non-violent struggle pushed the Biafran Independent Movement (BIM) to become recognised and admitted as the 46th member of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation (UNPO), an affiliate of the United Nations and the European Union. Today, it appears Uwazuruike is slowly cycling away from the hurricane dust being provoked by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). I shall, however, use the lessons of Ojukwu’s Biafra and Uwazuruike’s Biafra 2.0 to reflect on Kanu’s current Biafran struggles.

I would like to right away state where my heart is with regard to the cause that Nnamdi Kanu is pursuing. I wholeheartedly support what he is fighting for. I also believe 100 per cent in that cause, which, as I understand it, is to give the Igbo the respect and dignity they deserve as equal stakeholders in the Nigerian Project, failing which Nigeria should allow them to leave the nation to pursue their own destiny in a country where justice and equity shall reign.

I am not alone. Over the years, since the Civil War, Igbo youths grow up to find that the doors of opportunity have somehow been shut against them, especially in the public sector space where policies are being made. Even when they are admitted into that space, a glass ceiling is automatically put up to ensure that they are barred from seeing or contributing to what goes into the black box. Public policies consequently often tilt in favour of those sitting around the table of decision.

Today, there are policies and executive actions that negatively impact Igbo operators in the private sector. Certain policies and decisions that appear targeted at businesses in formal and informal sectors have destroyed Igbo efforts. An army of occupation is stationed permanently in the South East, where they extort and intimidate. It is almost as if they are there to ensure that the Igbo do not forget that they were defeated in a war. Infrastructure has become a privilege for which every Igbo is expected to clap and dance for Abuja whenever an expressway is rehabilitated or a new bridge is under construction. So, yes, I am in support of any effort to right the wrongs against the Igbo. I am also not alone in advocating and supporting the struggle to remove the inequities and security lockdown that define the current struggle of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu. Most Igbo people identify with this cause and the need to mount a struggle to correct subtle discrimination and blatant marginalization that have become the lot of vulnerable indigenous peoples of Nigeria. This is to say that this aberration is not peculiar to the Igbo; other ethnic nationalities have cried out over similar injustices and inequities. However, for the Igbo, this has become a consistent pattern that is now becoming almost institutionalized. There is, therefore, no way that an average Igbo person will not identify with Nnamdi Kanu’s message – and other messages from groups and individuals that decide that enough is enough.

The Igbo have always been willing to support anyone who fights against injustices and inequities in the Nigerian system. They do this without regard to the ethnic, religious and social affiliations of the warrior. History bears this out as the Igbo voting patterns in this Fourth Republic make clear.

In 1999, between Chiefs Olusegun Obasanjo and Olu Falae (both Yoruba Christians), the Igbo in the South East gave OBJ a whopping 70 per cent of their votes. They left Falae with a healthy 30 per cent that made him not to lose face in their region.

The 2003 election cycle was more interesting. The three frontrunners were Muhammadu Buhari (Fulani Muslim), Olusegun Obasanjo (Yoruba Christian) and the people’s General, Ikemba Nnewi (Igbo Christian). All three were prime actors during the Civil War, as rebel leader (Ikemba) and field commanders (OBJ and PMB). The Igbo cast what I consider their second vote on Biafra. The Ikemba, who led them to war, was rejected in favour of OBJ who obtained their surrender and negotiated a no-victor-no-vanquished pledge that was respected in its breach by General Yakubu Gowon. The Igbo preferred he who saved them from total annihilation and gave OBJ a massive 68 per cent of the vote. They left their kinsman with a paltry 23 per cent, significantly lower than what South East the Igbo gave Falae in 1999.

By the way, the first vote on the Civil War happened during the Second Republic. In 1979 when Zik of Africa (an Igbo Christian) squared up with Shehu Shagari (Fulani Muslim) who was then being backed by the powerful returnee war general. Shagari lost his deposit in the region. Not only that, the attempt by Ikemba to become a senator from old Anambra State was also rebuffed and he was roundly defeated.

Related News

Between Shehu Musa Yar’Adua and Buhari (both Fulani Muslims) in 2007, the Igbo did not mince words. They gave Yar’Adua all the votes (99 per cent) and went ahead to repeat the feat when his deputy, Goodluck Jonathan (Ijaw Christian), assumed power and contested in 2011 against the same Katsina General. President Jonathan got 98 per cent of the votes against Buhari, which was 1 per cent less than Yar’Adu received from the region. There are two war generals that the Igbo love and have massively supported in Nigeria, Ibrahim Babangida and Obasanjo. And the reason is simple. Both were blind to ethnicity and religion during their respective administrations. The ones they didn’t want to have anything to do with are Murtala Muhammed (Kanuri Muslim) and Buhari. To the list would have been added Benjamin Adekunle and TY Danjuma (both Christians), if they had dared to contest elections and sought votes in Igboland.

Everyone understands the primary reason for Igbo voting preferences – they are based on roles that candidates played during the Civil War. And this is how it should be in a representative democracy. Nigeria will be a better place when citizens begin to vote for candidates based not only on perceived competence but also on past records of engagement with groups and individuals that they seek to rule. A country suffers where politics of expediency rules.

The second lesson from this voting pattern is that the Igbo prefer political doves to hawks; they readily embrace those who understand that the country belongs to all and are willing to do everything in their power to run inclusive governments. Warmongers and ethnic irredentists are out of the question for this group with their age-old republican tradition.

The third, as already mentioned, is that Igbo support for the Nigerian project is blind to religion or ethnic affiliations but awake and clear-eyed about issues of justice and equity in the polity. It is this alertness that intermittently throws up agitations for justice and separatist desires.

Nnamdi Kanu’s Biafra 2.1 is a reflection as well as a manifestation of the people’s suffering, anxieties and worries. To date, I recognise three most impactful post-civil war champions of this cause.

The first is Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, whose politics indirectly led to the emergence of an Igbomab as the number two citizen of a democratic Nigeria barely nine years after the war. But, more importantly, his strategic alliances led to the first proper positioning of the Igbo at the policymaking table, between 1979 and 1983, until a certain General from Katsina happened along.

The second champion of Igbo struggle, in my view, is Uwazuruike and his Biafran Independence Movement. Being a lawyer, it is no surprise that he later focused more on advocacy. His efforts have promoted and escalated awareness and recognition of the Igbo as an at-risk indigenous ethnic group in the world.

The third champion and the focus of this interrogation is Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, a former disciple of Uwazuruike who broke away to institutionalise social advocacy and violent confrontations in his quest. Kanu’s advocacy, backed by an enforcement mechanism, has sensitized, mobilized and energized deprived youths, Diaspora Igbo and a rump of Igbo intellectuals from the Ivory Tower. I consider this his greatest achievement to date.

In next week’s entry, we shall examine the potent force that Mazi Kanu has unleashed and how this is being managed to ensure that Biafta 2.1 fares much better than previous efforts.