MASSOB, IPOB and the neo-Biafra movement

CHUKS OLUIGBO

The issues around the Biafra agitation of recent years – whether by Ralph Uwazuruike’s Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) or Nnamdi Kanu’s Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) – are multipronged. Let’s look at just two.

One, the agitation is a glaring sign of a nation not built, just like any other ethnically-inspired movement in the country, be it the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP), Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), O’odua People’s Congress (OPC), or by whatever name it goes. It all goes back to what Agwu Okpanku postulated in a 1975 article in the Enugu Sunday Renaissance: “Biafra as an active physical rebellion is dead; it died in 1970. But there is always Biafra. In other words, any group of Nigerians, whether ethnically or in terms of their social class or their profession or their geographical origin, would revolt if they felt mistreated by this country.”

The idea that Nigeria is not a nation is not new. Long before independence, in 1947, Obafemi Awolowo had made the point that “Nigeria is not a nation. It is mere geographical expression.” The same notion was repeated during a sitting of the Northern House of Assembly in 1964, when Alhaji Usman Liman uttered the now famous statement: “North is for Northerners, East for Easterners, West for Westerners, and the Federation is for us all.” Many other Nigerians have since then implied or affirmed this notion through their actions or utterances. Truth is, Nigeria in its present form is at best a Tower of Babel. There is neither cohesion nor coherence. This is the reality. We deny it at our own peril.

But Nigeria can be a nation – or, put differently, Nigeria’s nationhood can be negotiated. Sadly, those who have ruled this country since 1960 have failed to realise that a nation doesn’t happen by decree or by fighting a war to keep a country together; it does not happen by creating an amnesty programme whenever a section of the country revolts; it does not happen by playing the ostrich, brushing aside the real issues, delineating “no-go areas” when national conferences are convened, and hoping the problems would just go away; and it does not happen by verbal threats or by unleashing the army and other security personnel on a bunch of protesting youths – that’s why they’ve always frittered golden opportunities that history has placed in their laps to build Nigeria into a cohesive entity. And that’s why former head of state Yakubu Gowon was damn wrong when he said on national television that Biafra is a settled issue.

Nation-building is not a one-off. The journey to nationhood is a long, tortuous one requiring full commitment, not lip service. Questions must be asked – penetrating, soul-searching questions. Why are these youths on the streets? Is it just about a certain Nnamdi Kanu or are there deeper issues? Why the sudden upswing? We must confront the ghosts of our past if we desire a warm embrace with our future. There are wounds to be healed – across the land. President Muhammadu Buhari has another chance; he must muster the will to begin the process of building a truly united nation – not widen the crevices. There is the report of the last National Conference to consider, as flawed as it may be considering that there were no-go areas.

Two, the agitation is a symptom of a sick, fractured society, one that has lost its soul, just like 419, kidnapping, armed robbery, ritual killings, cultism – and the mother of them all, terrorism. The wealthy few – who, by the way, have become rich by gobbling up the common wealth – live in nauseatingly ostentatious affluence while poverty ravages the land, and many able-bodied youths can’t find a decent job to do. A youth who is gainfully engaged won’t leave work to march on the streets during work hours – and without even a clear sense of why he is protesting. Here’s how an old schoolmate who lives in Sweden summed it up in an online group chat the other day: “Here in Sweden, they [the Biafra protesters] agitated and marched to the Nigerian embassy, but the day and the time they did it, I didn’t know. I guess it’s our people here who have no papers and no jobs that did it. Those of us who are seriously engaged in many kinds of serious work have no time for this.”

The moral should be clear enough. The new government must take the issues of wealth redistribution and job creation seriously. Nigeria’s army of unemployed youths, in any part of the country, is tinder near a petrol station that can light up anytime, a ticking time-bomb that must be defused immediately – with the right job-generating policies.

As an aside, while there may be genuine Biafra agitators, there is no discountenancing the fact that it may be brisk business for a few – thanks to Nkem Ibekwe, chairman of Mezie-Alaigbo Foundation, for bringing that angle to the fore in his article in The Nation (Friday, November 13, 2015) titled “Biafra agitation as big business”. His conclusion – “Of course, when Ndi-Igbo, especially those in the Americas (US, Canada, etc) and Europe, because of their emotional attachment to the name, Biafra, send monies to MASSOB to address matters arising from its so-called non-violent protests, the funds only end up in private pockets. Today, Uwazuruike has a helipad in his country home at Okwe, Imo State” – is in sync with what I’ve always thought.

And then, he caps it with a quote from Chekwas Okorie’s 2009 pamphlet “The MASSOB Misadventure”: “The MASSOB project as being implemented is the greatest and most massive fraud and deceit that has ever befallen the beleaguered Igbo people since we were created on planet earth by the Almighty God.”

But shouldn’t the Igbo Diaspora be funding job-creating projects in Igboland to get their jobless brothers back home busy rather than enriching a few guys who end up sending Igbo youths out on the streets to risk their lives? Just wondering!