The recent remarks credited to the Obi of Onitsha, His Royal Majesty, Igwe Alfred Nnaemeka Achebe, CFR, concerning the agitation for Biafra and the continued detention of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu have generated outrage among many who believe deeply in the Biafran cause. While some may interpret his comments as diplomatic, many others see them as disappointing, compromising, and detached from the historical realities surrounding the Biafra struggle.
To claim that Biafra “doesn’t have a map” is not only historically inaccurate but also dismissive of a painful history written with blood, sacrifice, and survival. Biafra existed as a recognized territorial entity between 1967 and 1970 under the leadership of the Head of State and Commander-in-Chief, General Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu.
The territory was known internationally during the Nigerian genocidal war on Biafra, and millions suffered starvation, bombardment, displacement, and death within those boundaries.
Whether one supports modern agitation or not, denying the historical and geographical identity of Biafra appears intellectually dishonest and emotionally insensitive to the memories of those who lived through the war.
Even beyond history, the Biafran movement today is not merely about geography. It is rooted in longstanding complaints about political marginalization, insecurity, uneven federal representation, economic neglect, military repression, and perceived injustice against many people in the Southeast. Therefore, reducing the agitation to “a government without a mandate” ignores the social frustrations that gave birth to the movement in the first place.
More concerning was the suggestion that Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Movement must “blend back into society and play a different role” before his release becomes acceptable. Many supporters of the movement would see this as an indirect demand for ideological surrender. Freedom of expression cannot be conditional on abandoning one’s political convictions. If self-determination is considered a democratic right under international law, then advocating for it should not automatically be treated as extremism or something that must be psychologically corrected.
The comparisons with Mandela and Obasanjo also raises important questions. Mandela was not respected because imprisonment changed his beliefs; he was respected because he remained committed to the liberation of his people despite imprisonment. Many who invoke Mandela often forget that the apartheid government once labeled him a terrorist before global pressure and historical truth vindicated his struggle.
Traditional rulers occupy a respected place in Ala-Igbo because they are expected to protect the dignity, memory, and collective interests of their people. At moments of political tension, many citizens expect moral clarity from their leaders, not statements that appear to echo state narratives against popular agitation.
While diplomacy has its place, diplomacy that weakens the legitimacy of a people’s grievances risks being interpreted as complicity.
Nobody is above criticism, including kings. Respect for traditional institutions should not silence honest reactions when statements appear to undermine a struggle many consider existential. The Biafran question cannot be erased through semantics, moderation campaigns, or elite distancing. It remains alive because the conditions that birthed it remain unresolved in the minds of many people.
If true peace and unity are desired, then the focus should not merely be on changing the personality or tone of agitators. The deeper task should be confronting the political conditions, distrust, and historical wounds that continue to fuel agitation across the Southeast.
History has shown repeatedly that movements do not disappear simply because influential voices dismiss or redefine them. They endure for as long as the underlying grievances remain unanswered.
Family Writers Press International
No comments
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.