Revisiting Aburi: Ojukwu’s Uncompromising Stand for Peace Against Gowon’s Duplicity

Revisiting Aburi: Ojukwu’s Uncompromising Stand for Peace Against Gowon’s Duplicity In recent statements and his new autobiography, former H...

Revisiting Aburi: Ojukwu’s Uncompromising Stand for Peace Against Gowon’s Duplicity

In recent statements and his new autobiography, former Head of State Gen. Yakubu Gowon has revived claims that Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu “frustrated” peace efforts and truncated the Aburi Accord of January 1967. This narrative is not only historically inaccurate but a deliberate distortion aimed at shifting blame for the Nigerian Civil War. The official minutes of the Aburi meeting tell a different story: Ojukwu consistently pushed for peaceful resolution, while Gowon’s actions suggested preparation for conflict.

Ojukwu’s Push for Non-Violence at Aburi

From the very start of the Aburi meeting (January 4-5, 1967) in Ghana, Ojukwu took a firm stand against violence. He argued passionately that force could not solve Nigeria’s problems and proposed a resolution renouncing the use of force. This was not a mere suggestion, after exhaustive deliberations, the Supreme Military Council unanimously adopted Ojukwu’s declaration. All parties, including Gowon, agreed to:

- Renounce the use of force as a means of settling the Nigerian crisis.

- Reaffirm their faith in discussions and negotiations as the only peaceful way forward.

- Halt further importation of arms and ammunition until normalcy was restored.

Ojukwu’s advocacy for dialogue was clear and recorded in the official minutes. He emphasized that violence would only deepen divisions in a country already reeling from coups and pogroms. His position was not that of a warmonger but of a leader seeking genuine reconciliation through structural reforms a looser federation that would protect all regions.

Who Was Preparing for War?

While preaching peace at the table, Ojukwu directly confronted suspicions of duplicity. He accused the Nigerian Military Government of using the meeting as cover for arms build-up. Specifically, he stated that Major Apolo had been sent abroad to negotiate arms deals, and that £1 million worth of arms purchased from Italy were already stored in Kaduna.

Gowon responded by admitting that arms had been ordered, claiming £¾ million, with £80,000 paid due to “deficiencies” in the army’s stock. He justified storing them in Kaduna for security reasons. The minutes show Ojukwu exposing this contradiction: talking peace while stockpiling weapons.

History vindicates Ojukwu’s suspicions. The Federal side’s subsequent actions including Decree No. 8, which many viewed as a betrayal of Aburi’s spirit and the rapid slide into war suggest that Gowon’s government was not fully committed to the peaceful path unanimously agreed upon.

Implementation Betrayed: Who Truncated the Peace?

Ojukwu returned from Aburi and publicly stood by the agreement (“On Aburi We Stand”). The Eastern Region sought full implementation of the unanimous resolutions, which included repealing decrees that had eroded regional powers and vesting authority in the Supreme Military Council with unanimous concurrence.

Instead, the Nigerian Federal Government backtracked. Decree No. 8 was seen by Ojukwu and the East as deviating significantly from Aburi agreement, particularly on emergency powers and regional autonomy. Ojukwu refused to compromise on what had been unanimously agreed. Gowon’s later creation of states (dividing the East) further violated the accord’s spirit.

Ojukwu did not “truncate” peace,  he insisted on honoring it. Gowon, having secured arms and faced internal pressure (including from permanent secretaries who reportedly felt he had conceded too much), chose a path that led to war.

The Bitter Irony: Union by Force

Gowon’s justification for the war was “keeping Nigeria one.” But the question remains relevant today: Has union by force made Nigeria better?

Decades after the conflict, Nigeria grapples with deep ethnic distrust, insecurity, economic hardship, agitations, call for regional government and governance failures. The wounds of the war including the blockade and massive civilian suffering in the East, have not fully healed. Forced unity without addressing underlying injustices has produced a fragile nation prone to recurring crises, rather than the prosperous, cohesive country that true reconciliation could have built.

Ojukwu was a man who, at Aburi, chose the harder path of dialogue over domination. He warned against arms build-up even as he advocated peace. Gowon’s recent attempts to rewrite this history as Ojukwu being the obstacle ignore the documented minutes and the sequence of events.

True peace requires acknowledging facts, not peddling convenient lies. Nigeria deserves leaders who learn from Aburi, that dialogue, not force, is the only sustainable way forward. Ojukwu’s legacy as a champion of peaceful resolution stands firm against revisionism.

Nigeria didn’t just betray Aburi Accord and Biafra, it betrayed Africa and the conscience of the world. That is why, decades later, its wounds still fester and its problems refuse to die.

Family Writers Press International.