Elliot Ugochukwu-Uko
Ralph launched a new agitation for the resuscitation of a separate state of Biafra more than 22 years ago. It immediately gained acceptance and popularity amongst youths of the Eastern region. They grew in number and their dream gained traction. What was the reaction of these three categories of people to the massive agitation for Biafra under Ralp? One, the central government; two, leaders and elders of the region and three, elected political leaders of the zone? Honest attempt to identify and appraise their attitude towards the agitation and the agitators will help give a better understanding of what brought us here.
First, they thought it was a huge joke. Next, they sought Ralph’s acquaintance after the huge crowd he garnered frightened them. Then, they responded by kissing up to him for protection of sorts, empowered him and sought protection by befriending him. They all felt insecure without his friendship, so they fell over each other, hustling him. That explains why they thought Nnamdi would be exactly like Ralph. Their big mistake. They tried the same format and formula with Nnamdi. And received shock treatment. The two individuals and the circumstances of their emergence as leaders of the agitation were two very different situations, that took the politicians ages to understand. They had different mindsets and different agendas.
The commitment of the central government to their preferred strategy of lethal force, literally made it difficult for the political class to explore other strategies. Everyone was scared of offending Abuja and the situation gradually deteriorated.
To the elite, the entire thing looked like a scam, so they discredited the agitation and distanced themselves from it. They saw the whole thing as an unnecessary irritation. They believed that the anger in the hearts of millions of aggrieved citizens, victims of dysfunctional Nigeria, were merely exploited to create an enterprise that grants fame and wealth to some people, they despised the agitators, especially the leaders and told me constantly to warn the leaders, that they were only wasting the lives of their followers for nothing.
To politicians, the whole thing upsets their hold on the people. Exposes their self serving mindset and disrespects them. They were hoping it would blow over. They chose to discreetly identify with the agitators while pledging their loyalty to Abuja at the same time. They didn’t have the solution and didn’t want to do anything Abuja did not expressly approve. The agitators believed both in the righteousness and possibility of their cause. But the larger population didn’t know what to make of it. They adopted “siddon look”.
Everyone agreed the endless humiliation our people are facing should come to an end, but nobody wanted anything that would lead to the loss of lives. Amongst the politically exposed folks were characters who traded on situations like this, lied to the authorities and made a fortune as informal advisers to the government. Because this particular group had no interest in closure or resolution of the crises, as resolving the issue puts them out of job, they lied endlessly to make sure government never engages the agitators.
This potpourri of emotions, fears and intrigues kept the agitation growing over time. A situation that would have been easily resolved in its infancy stage, was allowed to metastasize like cancerous cells, turning into a huge monster, just because some people swore never to dignify the “conquered” region by engaging their restive youths.
We may have to ponder on some points:
1 How come no effort or attempt was ever made in 22 years to invite and engage the agitators, at least to obtain first-hand from them their grievances? What compelling reasons supported the policy of totally ignoring them for 22 years? If the central government felt it was infra dig to talk to them, how about state governments of the region, what exactly informed the decision never to dialogue with the agitators?
2 Why exactly did government adopt lethal force as the only response to the agitation. How come everyone was comfortable with the extrajudicial killings of unarmed youths in a school compound in Aba, inside a catholic church at Nkpor, at bridgehead Onitsha, at Port Hacourt, Emene, Enugu and elsewhere? Were these killings justified, just because the agitators demanded a referendum to determine the future of Nigeria?
3 Was the deliberate policy of isolation, brazenly visited on the region right in the middle of the agitation, designed to provoke the people of the region and deepen their frustration and bitterness, in order to prove to them and to the world that the people of the region were completely inconsequential?
4 Is there a deliberate policy to offend and drive the people of the region to their wit’s end, by excluding them from the headship of all military, paramilitary and security formations in the country, in order to grow and recruit converts to the agitation? By showing and telling them that they are not equal citizens, that they are unwelcome and unwanted here.
5 Why did regional leaders reject and shun all entreaties to engage the agitators six and again, four years ago? Why the deliberate delay? Where are they waiting until the agitation becomes difficult to handle? How does the state benefit when the agitation grows bigger and stronger? Why nurture and grow it by refusing to engage them?
6 When Nnamdi agreed to a restructured Nigeria at the meeting with regional Governors on 30th August 2017, and a meeting fixed in a fortnight to seal the agreement, who ordered the military assault that disrupted and crashed that effort at peace? What was the exact intention of destroying that peace process?
7 When I pleaded with the South-East Governors forum through the DG, Prof Simon Ortuanya, as recently as two and half years ago, to immediately rally and engage Nnamdi in a dialogue, why exactly did they choose to ignore my appeal?
8 How come the entire political class did not worry about the consequences of losing control of the region to Nnamdi, who proved that the people were with him through regular sit-at-home shutdowns? Why were they still refusing to engage him? What exactly were they waiting for? Has living in denial ever solved a problem anywhere in history?
9 Why was there no effort in 22 years to quietly address any of the issues inspiring the agitation? Is arrogance part of the problems that brought us to this point? Are lessons learnt? Is there genuinely a sincere effort now to resolve the issues? Is there any hope?
When you dispassionately appraise these points, the self-evident realisations only leaves one with deep concern, worries and uncertainty.
There still are several other points to ponder.
The agitators may have made so many mistakes, but the decision to ignore them for 22 years cannot be satisfactorily explained. Shunning them for this long, suggested contempt, disdain and disregard towards their welfare and even their existence.
Applying only lethal force, completely convinced them that they have been sacrificed and apportioned for utter destruction. The truth is unattractive. There are many points to ponder still. Only the truth shall set us free and heal the land. The people who made erroneous decisions should kindly correct their mistakes.
