By Dr. Ugoji Egbujo

Biafra has many opponents. Many who saw the civil war don’t want another war. Some others think separation will not benefit the average Igbo. These opponents are concerned about Igbos. Their arguments do not question the right of Igbos to make a determination. Then there are opponents of Biafra who find the very idea of Biafra as sacrilegious. Some of them think Igbos who want Biafra are delusional. They believe that Biafra is high treason. Unfortunately this idea that the agitation for Biafra is reprehensible or even criminal is widespread. It is erroneous. Nationalistic fervour is good. But it shouldn’t leave the public with a faulty idea of Nigeria.

Nigeria was forged without consensus. The Colonial masters were presumptuous, imperious. They took for granted the consent of the indigenous people. Perhaps since they deemed them uncivilized, their consent was not necessary. An independent Nigeria has been run on the assumption that consent was obtained and persists or is, in fact, immaterial.

Members of the Movement for the Survival of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) during their rally to mark the 17th anniversary of the movement, yesterday, in Awka, Anambra State.

Biafra is routinely seen as a criminal aspiration because of the false idea that Nigeria is not negotiable. That fallacy has gone unchallenged for so long, it now has the appearance of truth. Nigeria takes pride in being a democracy. She has christened herself a federation. This federation of states is indeed, a conglomeration of ethnic nations. These nations predated the colonial master. The selfish colonial masters were not interested in fashioning enduring nations. They lumped disparate nations together without discrimination. That didn’t dissolve them.

We found ourselves in a union. We are now a constitutional democracy. We have entrenched freedoms. Persons have right to personal autonomy and groups have right of self determination. Minority groups must be protected. It is only the very negotiability of the union that can guarantee equity and fair play. The promoters of ‘one Nigeria’ see Nigeria as inviolable. Nigeria’s inviolability has to be earned, worked out. It can’t be assumed or decreed. Nigeria has to be morally appealing, attractive. So the proponents of ‘One Nigeria’ must strain themselves to ensure equity and fair play. Biafra is therefore a democratic option.

Now let’s rethink Biafra. Let’s look at the legitimacy of the struggle from another perspective. Imagine that the Hausa Fulani held a meeting yesterday and decided to leave Nigeria. Imagine that the meeting found that their cultural identity would be better preserved in an Arewa Republic. Imagine that they adduced Sharia rule as a major reason why Arewa republic would be a better platform for their people to achieve their potentials and flourish. Imagine that they found that an Islamic theocracy was, in truth, more edifying than liberal democracy. They would have sound arguments. Those are morally legitimate arguments for self determination. That struggle cannot without more be deemed selfish or criminal.

Such an agitation for an Arewa Republic could sprout and find measurable resonance on the streets of Kano, Kaduna and Sokoto. If that happens, what would the Federal Government do? I know the Federal Government will fret. The government will not scoff. Yet, the Federal Government treats Biafra agitations as nuisance. Would any federal government have the courage to attend to agitations for Arewa Republic with dismissive contempt? The answer is not difficult. Would any rational federal government fail to seek political negotiations to contain widespread demands for an Arewa Republic?

The present crop of Biafran agitators may lack legitimacy. Many Igbos do not subscribe to their methods. But every Igbo understands the root causes of the agitation for Biafra. Politicians have failed the people and misery has spread. But that’s not the primary cause. The Igbo people feel particularly marginalized. They sit like tenants where others march around like landlords. They have to prove their loyalty where the loyalty of others is presumed. They are in many ways second class citizens in Nigeria. Igbos are united on this. It will be mischievous to dismiss them as paranoid or misguided

Why then is Federal Government insensitive? The government doesn’t have to negotiate with the IPOB. The Federal Government has to attend to the root causes of disaffection. If the demand were for an Arewa republic would the Federal Government seek to demonize the very idea of secession? We know that would be suicidal. Will the Federal Government not seek to make amends, to court the hearts and minds of disaffected Arewa people?

Let’s ask further questions. Who can stop a Hausa Fulani self-determination? If the Hausa Fulani choose to abandon Nigeria who has the capacity or the will to stop them from leaving? They wont even need a referendum. You can’t avoid inequality completely. A united Hausa Fulani can walk away, but Igbos or Itsekiris can’t. I understand that. If no one can stop the Hausa Fulani from leaving then government must stop now and think. Should an agitation for separation be treated with disdain simply because the demanding group is deemed weak?

Biafra has lingered. Nigeria has not been forged into one country. All citizens do not have a shared equal sense of belonging. Biafra may not serve the overall interests of Igbos better than a reformed equitable Nigeria. Igbos are the most widely dispersed and deeply entrenched ethnic group in Nigeria. But Biafra will give Igbos a better sense of belonging than the present dysfunctional Nigeria. What Igbos seek is a level playing field, anywhere it can be found. I am not convinced of the necessity of separation now. I am convinced Igbos have an exercisable right of self-determination which must be respected. Time to talk is now.