IPOB DOS: The Institutionalization Of IPOB Is The Best Thing Since The Declaration Of Biafra In 1967

IPOB DOS: The Institutionalization Of IPOB Is The Best Thing Since The Declaration Of Biafra In 1967   On May 30, 1967, General Chukwuem...

IPOB DOS: The Institutionalization Of IPOB Is The Best Thing Since The Declaration Of Biafra In 1967

 

On May 30, 1967, General Chukwuemeka Ojukwu declared Biafra’s independence, as mandated by Eastern Consultative Assembly, following the deluge or an ocean of bloodletting by jihadists who, with the pre-planned help of British Broadcasting Corporation, misrepresented a Nigerian military coup as an Igbo coup. For further information on the post-independence political crisis, consult: “There Was A Country: A Personal History Of Biafra,” by Chinua Achebe.

 

In the almost 36 months’ genocidal war, the jihadists offspring of Othman Dan Fodio saw General Ojukwu as a personality representative of the undying spirit of the Biafran people, and also the symbol of the Biafran army, and wanted to make an example of him by capturing him. That would have been brutal and devastating had they succeeded.

 

Ojukwu left for Ivory Coast, after handing over to Philip Effiong, without surrendering. Even General Effiong did not sign a peace deal.

 

Between 12 to 13 years, on June 18, 1982, Ojukwu returned to join Nigerian politics. His return was termed Unconditional Amnesty, but as a quid pro quo, in reality he was forced to accept abandonment of Biafra or the use of his Biafran military title. He was also forced to forfeit his properties to the government. From 1970 to 1982, when Ojukwu returned, and from 1982 to before 1999, when Chief Ralph Uwazurike emerged, the issues surrounding Biafra was unresolved and unmentioned.

 

The Nigerian government wanted a closure on the issue of Biafra with the pardon of Ojukwu and the reintegration into Nigerian politics. This was a great setback and problematic for anyone with Biafra ideology, but it was a calculated risk and gamble for Ojukwu who sought a broader reintegration of Igbo people into Nigeria. The courageous introduction of nonviolence agitation, by Ralph Uwazurike, was a game changer. But something was missing.

 

Like Ojukwu, during the genocidal war, the Ralph Uwazurike Movement for the Actualization of Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), was built around a personality. When Ralph Uwazurike happened, Nigerian government gave his movement the Ojukwu treatment. That is to say that they studied his movement and discovered that it was built around him, so they isolated and put him incommunicado. That was the beginning of the end for MASSOB.

 

With IPOB, the Achilles heel of Ojukwu and Uwazurike is settled. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has offered Biafrans an institution under the leadership of the DOS, and never again shall there be a cataclysm in pursuit of our freedom.

 

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu can go ahead and negotiate his way out just like Ojukwu and Uwazurike. He should go ahead and make a deal with Nigerian government, because IPOB as an institution is no longer a movement pivoting towards a strong person. As an institution, IPOB does not need the validation of any person, and Nigeria government holds no trump card over the continued detention of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.

 

Family Writers Press International