Just as most wars throughout history started rather innocuously, and often with the least expectation that they would escalate, so a new turbulence is brewing in the South Eastern geo-political zone of the country, and has actually escalated into a bloody shooting exercise. As at the last count the Nigerian military has launched an ‘Operation Python Dance 11’ and under its cover, is engaged in fire drills and armed engagements with youth in the zone. Particularly hit are cities like Owerri, Onitsha, Umuahia and Aba where a three-day curfew was imposed last week by the Abia State governor, Okezie Ikpeazu, pursuant to reversing and containing the breakdown of law and order.
Just as well the anomy spilled over outside to the Rivers State a non Ibo terrain, where rampaging Ibo youth were reported to have attacked some people believed to be of Northern origin. In the process lives, limbs and livelihoods are lost, while communal peace has been disrupted. As things stand, the high point of that exercise is the reported uncertainty of whereabouts and welfare of Nnamdi Kanu, along with some of the leaders of the separatist Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). Soldiers reportedly raided his house and in the process ransacked the premises. The military who ostensibly wanted to arrest him claimed that it only asked his father to produce him and in an apparent failure to seize him, a military response must have ensued. Meanwhile his lawyer is claiming that Kanu, his client, had been incommunicado due to the military action. The truth lies somewhere in between the two positions.
If the reported happenings in that region do not constitute the tell tale signs of an impending or running war, then war must enjoy a different meaning as being devoid of acrimony. Otherwise the situation is now tense enough to qualify for a different approach from all stake holders as if left unresolved, there may no more be a Nigeria as it is constituted today. Unfortunately expectations of an early resolution to the crisis may be wishful thinking if the present state of affairs in the country is anything to go by. While it may be tempting for the various interests in the ongoing crisis to envision victory for their respective causes, and further press home their agenda, the harsher lessons of wars clearly teach that nobody, actually wins in any war. Even when one party virtually swallows the other in victory, such is always at a price. And as has often been observed, this country may not survive another civil war after the 1967 – ’70 misadventure, even if any section pretends to have been the victor. That is why the present crisis demands a completely different response from all parties involved in it.
As expected the ongoing crisis has attracted blames and rounds of condemnation in torrents for the warring parties.. Yet no matter what each side of the crisis claims the entire affair is the price the country is paying for complacence over a crisis that had shown signs of its incipience for a long time. It is therefore a cause and effect situation that was mismanaged, just as any instance of anomy constitutes the outcome of failure to do the needful by the concerned party(ies).
Yes, for the advocates of Biafra it may be appropriate to romanticise over the arrival of an Eldorado with the arrival of Biafra. That is because they have been goaded into avoiding certain questions about the way forward for the much sought after secessions from Nigeria. Firstly, will a secession of the five true ‘Biafraland’ South Eastern states from Nigeria lead to a disintegration of the federation? The immediate answer is no. In fact such a development will be seen by many as a blessing in disguise for those who stand to benefit from the absence of Ibos in the national space. Secondly, are the communities which secessionists now target as likely inclusions into the envisaged ‘Biafra land’ willing to leave Nigeria and join in the new dispensation? Even in this aspect those of them who are willing to embrace the truth know that the answer is no. The third question is who leads the much sought for Biafra ‘nation’? Ís it Nnamdi Kanu, or a new leader that will emerge after the creation of the entity? Even from the prevailing circumstances it is obvious that Kanu’s reign may soon be determined not through the force of arms, but by in – house contradictions arising from the process of gate crash through which he came into prominence.
It is therefore in the light of such contradictions that the IPOB dispensation demands an emphatic response from the mainstream Ndigbo establishment. It is not unlikely that many Nigerians – especially the present day generation of Ibo youth fail to consider deeply that the greatest challenge of Ndigbo is that of picking a common leader for themselves. If they bother to rethink the entire situation they will appreciate why they do not need a Kanu led insurrection to better their lot in Nigeria as his agenda is just unsustainable.
In all truth the Ibo do not need to fight to be further integrated into the Nigerian society as by all reckoning they command a dominant presence in many areas of the national life. The Kanu misadventure which has led to killings and losses in lives and property constitutes a case of people living in glass houses and throwing stones at neighbours who live in thatch houses. Where the casualty level will be higher is any body’s guess.
This is why the Ibo leadership needs to intervene and call their youth to order. Secession by the Biafra minded elements should not be anathemic to the Nigerian political establishment, if the right process is adopted. And that is through proper negotiation as provided for in the Constitution. To do otherwise is to throw away the baby and the bath water.
