|
MASSOB calls for release of members
Abakaliki—Mr Alphonsus Ajuka, Regional Administrator, Movement for Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), wants the Federal Government to release 2,000 of its members currently in prison custody.
Ajuka further appealed to the international community to put pressure on the government to ensure their release.
He made the appeal at Onueke, Ezza South Local Government Area of Ebonyi while addressing MASSOB members.
Ajuka regretted that in spite of the non-violent posture of MASSOB, its members were being persecuted by agents of the government.
The administrator said that MASSOB was floated in 1999 to start a non-violent protest to bring to the attention of the international community the deprivation of the people of the former Eastern Region.
Source: Vanguard, 13th June 2008.
Uwazurike has betrayed MASSOB — MacDavies
Written by Vincent Ujumadu
AWKA— A MAJOR crisis appears to have engulfed the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), with the erstwhile director of information of the Movement, Comrade David Mac Davies alleging yesterday that MASSOB leader, Chief Ralph Uwazurike has betrayed the struggle.
Davies, who announced his resignation from the Movement, accused Uwazurike of having been compromised by the Federal Government, which, he said, made the leader to abandon about 130 members of MASSOB currently languishing in detention.
It was however gathered that Davies stand might not be unconnected with the recent reorganisation in the Movement which led to the dropping of many former officials, including provincial administrators.
According to Davies, it was due to the ugly development in the Movement that contributed to non observance of the Biafra Day on May 30 this year which, he noted, was the first time such a thing happened since the Aba declaration many years ago.
“I am no longer part of what Uwazurike is doing. I have resigned from the Movement and asked our former members to stop associating with the group. He compromised this struggle by telling the Federal Government that he was going to bury his mother and since then, he has been enjoying himself at home while over 130 of our members are still in detention. How can we continue with the struggle when our leader has compromised?”
According to him, the 78 members of MASSOB who are facing trial in an Enugu court for alleged treason should have realised that the dance steps have changed, adding that they ought to have remained at home on May 30.
He recalled that about 2000 people have lost their lives since the struggle began, noting that from what is happening, it would appear that they died for nothing.
But the new administrator of MASSOB for Onitsha, Mrs. Uba Ezeonu said she was not aware of any betrayal by Uwazurike, regretting a situation whereby some people were going about vilifying the MASSOB leader.
She explained that she is in constant contact with the MASSOB, insisting that the struggle is still on course.
Source: Vanguard, 6th June 2008.
Rumble in MASSOB
From GEOFFREY ANYANWU, Awka
Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) suffered a major setback on Thursday when its acting Director of Information, David Mac Davis, announced his resignation and membership of the organization.
Mac Davis said he was resigning because MASSOB leader, Chief Ralph Uwazuruike, compromised the struggle and betrayed the group.
He specifically accused Uwazuruike of fraternizing with the Federal Government, which enabled him to get bail, while abandoning over 130 members of the group being detained by the law enforcement agencies.
Mac Davis told newsmen that the 78 members of MASSOB, who were charged in Enugu with treason, should not have participated in the rally, in the first instance, because he had earlier directed that everyone sat back in their homes and steered clear of MASSOB activities.
He said: “I am no longer part of what Uwazuruike is doing. I have resigned and I have asked members to lay low for now until further notice.
I am now the former director of information. He compromised the struggle by telling the Federal Government of Nigeria that he was going to bury his mother. Now he has gone home to enjoy himself, while over 130 of us are still in detention. My boss, the former director of information, Uchenna Madu, is still in police custody and the man (Uwazuruike) doesn’t care about that. How do you expect us to continue when our leader has compromised?
“Those who are being charged with treason in Enugu shouldn’t have embarked on any rally or meeting, because I had earlier directed that they should stay in their homes and forget about the anniversary. Though it is an unfortunate development, I must once again state that Chief Uwazuruike has abandoned us and betrayed the struggle.
“I wish to recall those who lost their lives, about 2,000 people and those who are languishing in prison custody. But the man is at home enjoying himself. I will not make any move at ensuring their release because he could not release those that were in jail with him.”
In a swift reaction to Mac Davis’s allegation, the MASSOB Administrator in Onitsha, Mrs. Uba Ezeonu, said neither her nor her people were aware of any betrayal by Uwazuruike whom, she said, remained the great leader for the group.
Mrs. Ezeonu berated those she described as paid agents who went about peddling rumours of alleged betrayal by the MASSOB leader, stressing, “no matter how hard they try, the struggle will continue.”
She said, “I am not aware of any betrayal by Uwazuruike. What Mac Davis is saying is not true. There are some opposition people who are being paid to run the movement down. Some people have been going about peddling rumours of crisis and betrayal. I have just finished speaking with Uwazuruike and the MASSOB struggle is still on course. Presently, I am in the hospital with my husband who has been ill for some time now.”
Source: Sun, 6th June 2008.
MASSOB Releases List of Slain Members
From Charles Onyekamuo in Onitsha
Movement for Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), yesterday in Onitsha, Anambra State, made public, its list of about 2,020 members killed by agents of the state between 1999 and 2008, for agitating for actualisation of Biafra.
In a joint press conference addressed by Comrade Edison Samuel, MASSOB's Regional Administrator for Awka, and Onitsha, and Nze Christian Umeaka, its regional administrator for Nnewi, all in Anambra State, MASSOB said the compendium of the dead in which the names, addresses, date and year of death of each member was compiled showed that in Okigwe Zone, Imo State, 263 people were killed, while the casualties in Aba/owerri, Enugu/Abakaliki axis of the South-east stood at 448 and 198 respectively.
The organisation said it lost 1044 members in the "Onitsha Massacre of 2006/2007," while 67 others were killed in different communities in Abia north during the period under review.
MASSOB said most of these killings were extra-judicial, while the massacre and detention of its members across the country have continued unabated.
The group plans a peaceful demonstration march, which will begin from Okigwe through Enugu down to Onitsha between May 22 and 30, 2008, in commemoration of the 41st anniversary of the declaration of the defunct Republic of Biafra.
Source: This Day, 13th May 2008.
MASSOB decries persecution of members
Written by Enyim Enyim
Ebonyi— The Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) yesterday called for the release of its members in prisons across the country.
Leaders of the organisation made the call at a news conference at Onueke, Ezza South Local Government Area of Ebonyi, alleging that their members were being discriminated against in various parts of Nigeria.
Mr Chuks Eze, Ezikwo Regional Information Director of the organisation, who spoke on behalf of others, alleged that more than 1,000 MASSOB members were languishing in prisons.
Eze said the hardship inflicted on its members would not deter the organisation from pursuing "a noble cause".
He said MASSOB planned to hold a peaceful protest march that would start at Okwe, Okigwe, in Imo and cover major cities in the South-East region to draw attention to the maltreatment of its members.
Source: Vanguard, 13th May 2008.
Settling questions in Nigerian history
By Edwin Madunagu
NOWADAYS, almost each time I read a commentary by a Nigerian media commentator on an aspect of Nigerian history, I become depressed. Before now, I used to be merely irritated. But now the irritation has transformed into depression. The source of my irritation used to be the confusion of names, places and dates, and, of course, sequence of events. This I used to attribute to impatience, carelessness or laziness on the part of new-generation commentators and analysts. The explanation may be correct. But how do I explain this strong feeling that, going by media commentaries, no question in Nigeria's recent history appears to be settled - in terms of facts. Interpretations can last forever.
True, history is not mathematics where, once a matter is settled by proof (step-by-step logical argument erected on a small number of axioms), it is settled forever. Questions in history, society and law are often settled on the basis of "balance of evidence". The unstated assumption here is that the settled questions may be overturned in the future. Even then, history would be meaningless if at no point in time can we say that certain major questions have been settled, transformed, or reduced to simpler questions. More concretely, it would be unfortunate if, for instance, key questions on the events of (1966-1970) are still being formulated the same way they were formulated in the early 1970s - the passage of time, testimonies of direct partisans, expansion of knowledge and the appearance of hundreds of books and tonnnes of publications notwithstanding.
My thesis here is that most of the key questions still being asked on the (1966-1970) crisis have either been answered completely, or transformed, or reduced to simpler questions. The questions include: Was the January 1966 coup an Igbo coup? Who was the leader of the January coup? Was the July 1966 coup a revenge coup? Was General Aguiyi-Ironsi involved in the January coup? Was Colonel Victor Banjo involved in the January coup? Why was Banjo arrested and detained by Ironsi? Was General Yakubu Gowon involved in the July coup? Were the leaders of the January coup in support of Biafra's secession? Was there a plot to overthrow the Biafran regime in September 1967?
I would like to state that what follows is not an account of the Nigerian crisis (1966-1970). I am also not making any evaluation, or taking positions. This is simple an attempt to answer the questions raised above or reduce them to simpler questions. Let us begin by settling a rather simple question: Should the (1967-1970) armed conflict be called the Nigerian Civil War or the Nigeria-Biafra War? To answer this question you may adopt the legal perspective, or the historical perspective. For the legal perspective: A delegation of the Biafran regime, led by Major-General Phillip Effiong, surrendered to General Gowon in Dodan Barracks, Lagos, on January 15, 1970. The officers asked for "deployment". This was a clear statement that the conflict was a rebellion, a civil war. From here it follows, for instance, that Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu was a dismissed Lieutenant Colonel of the Nigerian Army until this dismissal was converted to retirement.
If the historical perspective is adopted, the following facts come out and become prominent: The Eastern Region of Nigeria was declared the Republic of Biafra on May 30, 1967 on the basis of the resolution passed by the joint meeting of the Consultative Assembly and Leaders of Thought on May 26, 1967. At the point of that declaration, the regime in Eastern Region was in total control of the region. Subsequently, Biafra was recognised by four independent countries - all members of the United Nations. Biafra fought a war with Nigeria for 30 months before the former collapsed. During that war, the Biafran leader, Chukwuemeka Ojukwu, was made a four-star general by the Executive Council of the Republic of Biafra. He retained that title till the end of the conflict, until Biafra ceased to exist. Ojukwu was therefore a General of the Biafran Army. Nothing can wipe out these historical facts.
January 1966 coup: The following points have been established: The core of the plotters was made up almost exclusively of Igbo-speaking army officers. The geopolitical coverage of the operations and the pattern of casualties suggest that the coup had Igbo ethnic motivations. But the coup leaders denied ethnic motivation and argued that the operation assumed those patterns because of mistakes committed by other leaders. Only an open trial could have begun the process of resolving the matter. But there was no trial. General Ironsi was not part of the plan, but as head of the army, he "collected" power from the confusion that characterised the execution of the coup. Colonel Victor Banjo was not part of the coup. But he was not trusted by Ironsi and the army officers close to him. On account of pressures and counter-pressure to which he was subjected, Ironsi could not put the coup plotters on trial, or otherwise punish them beyond putting them in detention.
Accounts of the January 1966 coup so far published implicitly identified Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu as the leader. But in one of the newspaper interviews he granted several years ago (and I think in his book, Because I am involved), Ojukwu insisted that Major Ifeajuna was the leader: Nzeogwu took over from Kaduna when he saw that the operation was failing, or had failed, in Lagos. Ifeajuna wrote a long account of the operation, but this has never been published in book form. The coup leaders, in their accounts, maintained that they intended to restructure the country and end corruption, tribalism and nepotism. At least one of them said in an interview that they intended to release Chief Obafemi Awolowo from prison and make him Head of State. It is clear that most of them did not support secession; and when war broke out and they were released from prison, they planned to complete the project they started on January 15, 1966. They failed again.
July 1966 coup: General Yakubu Gowon was not part of the plan or execution. As Chief of Army Staff under General Ironsi, he learnt of the operation when it had already started. Presented with a fait accompli, he pleaded that the operation should be bloodless. He reminded the coup operators that too much blood had already been shed in the country. Like General Ironsi, General Gowon "collected" power from the confusion that characterised the operation in which General Danjuma played a decisive role. Danjuma arrested Ironsi, neutralised his regime, charged him, and dismissed his plea of innocence. In his February 2008 interview in The Guardian, Danjuma confirmed that the July 1966 coup was a "revenge" coup. General Adeyinka Adebayo's attempt to dispute this characterisation is, at best, irritating. The man who arrested and charged Ironsi - an act which according to Lindsay Barrett, signaled the completion of the coup - says it was a revenge coup. And the man who was not even around at the time says it was not!
Treason trial in Biafra: As I said earlier, Victor Banjo was not part of the January 1966 coup. But he was nonetheless arrested and detained with the coup leaders. In September 1967, as Nigerian troops advanced on Enugu, capital of Biafra, Victor Banjo, a Brigadier in the Biafran army and Commander of the Biafran expeditionary force that invaded and briefly held the Mid-West Region, was put on trial for treason. He was the first accused. His three co-accused were Emmanuel Ifeajuna, colonel in the Biafran army; Phillip Alale, a Marxist labour leader; and Sam Agbam, a civil servant. They were accused of plotting to overthrow the Biafran regime. They were tried by a three-member special tribunal. They were found guilty and sentenced to death by firing squad. Ojukwu, as Head of State, confirmed the sentences. The sentences were carried out at Enugu on September 24, 1967.
References: Of the books written by combatants and published in the late 1970s and early 1980s I single out the following as references for the conclusions stated above: Nigeria's five majors, by Ben Gbulie; Why we struck, by Wale Ademoyega; Reluctant Rebel, by Fola Oyewole; Requiem Biafra, By J. O. G. Achuzia; No place to hide (Crisis and Conflicts inside Biafra) by Bernard Odogwu; The Nigerian Revolution and the Biafran War, by Joe Garba; Danjuma: The making of a general (written by Lindsay Barrett, but based on extensive interviews with the subject, a combatant).
To this list I add the following accounts by non-combatant: Let the truth be told (the coups d'etat of 1966), by D. J. M. Muffett; Perspectives on the Nigerian Civil War, by Siyan Oyeweso (editor); The Man Died and You must go forth at dawn, by Wole Soyinka. I also
add the recent two-part interview which The Guardian newspaper conducted with General Theophilus Danjuma and the reaction of General Adebayo, also published by the same newspaper. Finally, I refer readers to Rebel against rebels written by Nelson Ottah. The book is an account of the treason trial in Biafra. It is based on the verbatim record of the proceedings of the special tribunal. Those who are impressed by the brilliance of Victor Banjo as shown in his recently published prison writings need to read Rebels against rebels to confirm their impression.
Source: Guardian, 10th April 2008.
Biafra and its discontents
BY SAM OMATSEYE
The fury is so hot and full of molten magma that it can burn a whole race of people if they stood in its way. That was the impression that I got from the barrage of text messages and phone calls in the light of my articles on the Nigerian crisis in the 1960’s.
You would think I have been declared enemy number one of the Igbos. But this comes from a wicked misreading of my prose, which was simple enough. I was only articulating a view that I thought was not only objective but based on facts. For some people to think that I am anti-Igbo is not only mischievous but wicked. Some of my best friends are from the east. I was there a few months ago and enjoyed the sights and sounds and the warmth of the people.
In fact, one caller wanted to know the origin of my hatred for the Igbos, and I said that was unfounded. If I say that a group of people was misled by their leaders, that does not mean the people are bad. I cannot say, for instance, that the Americans are a bunch of evil people because George W. Bush and his monstrous cabinet led the country into a disastrous war. In fact, I got about the same grief I am getting from some Igbos when I was teaching at an American university. Before the Iraq war, I told them that the United States President had not been sincere with the people about the so-called weapons of mass destruction. I thought his claims were apocryphal and tendentious. I wanted to take my students along with me on the path of reason and conscience, but some thought I was a mere immigrant ingrate who was deploying the didactic platform of a classroom to denigrate the hallowed institution of the American presidency and the American people.
A year after the war, one of the students accosted me on the streets and apologised for misjudging me. Americans now give Bush a lot of indignant scorn for his addle-brained rush to the battlefield.
That was the kind of point I made about Biafra. I thought Ojukwu was selfish and egomaniacal to focus more on mundane issues like military hierarchy. --+He should have focused on the higher points of reconciliation. Was it more important that he was superior to Gowon in the army? Even others in the Supreme Miliatry Council were ready to work with him. He would not blanch. I maintain that he conned the majority of the Igbos into a meaningless war. He should have bargained for more concessions for the Igbo. The Aburi Accord provided enough independence for the Igbos and if every Igbo man wanted to live in the eastern region that would have been worked out. But that was not the right thing at the time. What we needed was a way to move forward, reconcile and heal the wounds of the pogrom.
But emotions were high in the east. Many people were being killed like dogs. Whole families suffered bestial lynching, especially in the north. I cannot even claim to be able to empathise with the Igbosover the grisly barbarism unleashed on them. I have always wondered what it would have been to be an Igbo man when the killings raged. It was awful. My point, though, was that if ten thousands died, should we not have done something to avoid two million from going the same way, especially if it was avoidable. And it was. That’s why I think Ojukwu was a disaster for the Igbos. I think a leader should pause and think before embarking on a war. It was not as though he had the wherewithal to confront the federal might, neither the international clout. He did not count the cost. That’s why some of his generals did not see eye-to-eye with him during the war. He was also a hopeless general who did no know how to strategise for victory.
If his aim was just Biafra, why did he go on expansionist missions? People should understand Ojukwu for who he is, a selfish man who lost an opportunity to be a head of state for too long. My view on Ojukwu should not be expanded to mean condemnation of the Igbo. That would be a wicked and mischievous reading of my position. People always need good leaders, men of wisdom and courage. Men who can chasten his people when they err and derail. If the Igbo intelligentsia forced Ojukwu, then he was not a man of his mind. Such men can’t and shouldn’t be leaders. But Ojukwu was pursuing a selfish ambition which coincided with the agitations of the intelligentsia. That’s what Americans call double whammy! It was also a double jeopardy.I always wondered how many great talents dissolved in the flames of that war on both sides. I have always contemplated poet Christopher Okigbo, perhaps the best poet this country has ever produced. He fell in that meaningless war. If the thunder of the war did not peal and consume, shall we be celebrating two Nobel laureates in Nigeria today?
I also noted from the responses that many were just emoting, few dwelled on facts and clear logic. One of them said he did not believe I was born during the crisis because my picture gives me away as a child of the 1970’s. A few snapped and growled at me.
What I would like to read is THE BOOK, which Ojukwu has promised to write for almost forty years. Maybe if he spends more time on it rather acting like a leader that he is not, then we can really debate the issues from his point of view. But the records on those years are clear. Maybe that is why he has not published. I hope, though, Bianca’s lovely presence is not distracting him. Ojukwu, tell us your tortoise story.
Source: The Nation, 23rd July 2007.
Top
|
