Soon after independence, the battle to consolidate this legacy of political and military dominance of a section of Nigeria over the rest of the federation began with increased intensity. It is this struggle that eventually degenerated into coup, counter coup and a bloody civil war.
Nigeria has had a turbulent history of conflict throughout the years. The divisions within the country did not start with the arrival of the British. This essay will look at the divisions that led to the war from three main periods; the pre-colonial era, the colonial era and the postcolonial era. From these three timelines the problems under each of these will be identified and elaborated upon.
The pre-colonial period
The area, which became known as Nigeria, had existed as a number of independent and sometimes hostile national states with linguistic and cultural differences until 1900. The Governor General of Nigeria between 1920-31, Sir Hugh Clifford described Nigeria as
“a collection of independent native states, separated from one another by great distances, by differences of history and traditions and by ethnological, racial, tribal, political, social and religious barriers.”
Nigeria was an amalgamation of three main ethnic groups; the Hausa/Fulani’s in the north, the Yoruba’s in the west and the Igbo’s in the east. These three main groups had a pre-colonial history of tribal and religious conflicts. This was compounded by intra-regional rivalry between the major ethnic groups in each region on one side and the minority groups who were against the ascendancy of the major ethic groups. 5 The islamicized Fulani had established their authority over a medley of states creating the empire of Usuman dan Fodio and his descendents. Consequently, the north was made of states that had Islam as the predominant religion. In addition, the various tribes were deeply divided and had disagreements over numerous issues. Thus they lived in various parts of Nigeria and did not cross each other’s paths.
THE COLONIAL PERIOD
6The building of Nigeria as a multi-national state began in 1900 with the creation of Northern and Southern Protectorates along with the colony of Lagos by the British government. Further effort at unification and integration was made in May 1906 when the colony of Lagos and the protectorate of Southern Nigeria, which had existed separately, were amalgamated to become the colony and protectorate of southern Nigeria.
Even then, the northern and the southern administration were separate and distinct. Both were independent of one another and each was directly responsible to the colonial office. However after several years they came to the realization that they could not control the three empires as one. As a result they separated it into two parts, north and south. The amalgamation of the administration of the two sections of Nigeria occurred on the 1 January 1914 by Lord Lugard. This was the first momentous act of the British in the political evolution of Nigeria as a modern state. For ease of governing and in the economic interest of the British, indirect rule and separate development policy were maintained in the two sections of the country, thus each group kept its identity, its Culture and its system of government. The amalgamated administration was based in Lagos. This, in effect produced two Nigeria’s, each in with different social, political, economic, and cultural backgrounds and development within the country.
Nigeria was divided into four administrative units in 1940: the colony of Lagos, the northern, eastern and western provinces. This administrative division, with increased power for the colony and the provinces, was not only maintained but separateness was also strengthened and deepened by Sir Arthur Richardson’s constitution of 1946 which inaugurated Nigeria’s regionalism. It however achieved a half-hearted political breakthrough by integrating the north with the south at the legislative level for the first time.
The post second world war political awareness and upsurge of nationalism in Africa brought about the Richardson’s constitution of 1950. Political parties were formed on regional and ethnic basis. The outcome of this was obvious: full-scale regionalism. With the McPherson’s constitution of 1951, a greater measure of autonomy was granted the regions with stronger regional legislatures. With only residual power left to the central government, Nigeria politically took a turn for the worse, and there was a possibility of three countries emerging out of Nigeria. In 1953, the central cabinet was split over the acceptance of a target date for securing self - government with the end result of the Kano riot. The gap between the regions widened. For the first time the North talked openly of the possibility of secession rather than endure what they saw as humiliation and ill - treatment. 7The West also threatened to secede over the non - inclusion of Lagos in the West in the new constitution. 8The solution was a federal constitution- that is; a certain amount of power was given to three regional governments, Northern, Western and Eastern. 9The leaders settled for Federal option. Because the British allowed self-rule for so long, western influence was prominent in southern Nigeria. The northerners were apprehensive of the west minister system because despite its majority status, southerners who had already adopted this system would overshadow them. Thus, the northerners were promised that their rights would be protected. In order check this, making northern Nigeria larger than the south produced a lopsided federation. However, for a working federation, there must be a no dominating side. In Nigeria, a balance could not be achieved hence the lopsided federation. There were constitutional conferences in 1957, 1958, and 1959 and in 1960 culminating in the granting of independence to Nigeria on October 1, 1960. It should be noted that from 1954 onwards, the political direction was constantly away from a strong center towards a formidable, almost insulation of the regional base of each major political party. The failure of the Willink commission to recommend the creation of more states in 1958 for the Nigerian type of federalism planted the most potent seed of instability into the evolution of Nigeria as a nation in the 1950s. All the political leaders who had strong and firm political bases in the regions fought hard for maximum powers for the regions, which weakened the center. At independence, Nigeria failed to produce a leader who would unite all of them. In addition to this, their differences were too deep to be able to join all three groups into one. Instead of regionalism ensuring and preserving national unity, it became its bane. There was diffusion instead of fusion of the three units. According to Gen. Obasanjo: "The only point on which Nigerian political leaders spoke with one voice was the granting by the British of political independence and even then they did not agree on the timing." With granting of independence in 1960, all the dirt, swept under the carpet, surfaced. Nigeria was now beset by strings of political problems, which stemmed from the lop-sided nature of the political divisions of the country and the type of the existing federal constitution, and the spirit in which it operated.
THE POST-COLONIAL PERIOD
The general census conducted in 1962 was alleged to be riddled with malpractices and inflation of figures of such astronomical proportions that the Eastern Region refused to accept the result. A second census was carried out in 1963, and even then the figures were accepted with some reservations. Meanwhile the people of the Middle Belt area of the North had grown increasingly intolerant of the NPC rule of the North. The Tiv, one of the major tribes in the Middle Belt, openly rioted for almost three years (1962 - 1965). Then came the biggest crisis of them all - the general election of 1964. The election was alleged to be neither free nor fair. All devices imaginable were said to have been used by the ruling parties in the regions to eliminate opponents. The Chairman of the Electoral Commission himself admitted there was proven irregularities. The President, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe refused to appoint a Prime Minister in the light of these allegations. The President and the incumbent Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, were each seeking the support of the Armed Forces. This marked the first involvement of the Armed Forces in partisan politics. The President announced that he had appointed the incumbent Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa; to form a broad based government. 10Balewa came from the north and the Igbos and Yorubas were constantly complaining about northern domination. Furthermore, there was an economic recession. By 1964, prices had risen by 15%, unemployment was rising and wages were well below average. The government responded by arresting Chief Awolowo, prime minister of the western region, which for a time seemed likely to break away from the federation. 11The same could not be said of the Western Region election of 1965. The rigging and irregularities in the election were alleged to be more brazen and more shameful. Law and order broke down completely leading to an almost complete state of anarchy. A private army of thugs of political parties committed arson and indiscriminate killings. Law abiding citizens lived in constant fear of their lives and properties. 12The Igbo’s were Christian, and had the best-educated elite, whose members became widely spread in trade and literate jobs across the other two regions. However, they felt both indispensable and ill appreciated. 13This was the state of affairs when a group of young, mostly Igbo, army officers staged a coup on 15th January 1966. 14The federal and northern prime ministers, Sir Abubakr Balewa and the Sarduna of Sokoto, were murdered along with Chief Akintola who was form the western region. However, senior officers stepped in to stall further developments. 15The aim of the coup was to establish a strong, unified and prosperous nation, free from corruption and internal strife. The outcome of the half-hearted and ill-fated coup was a change of political balance in the country. Major Nzeogwu's (the leader of the coup) aims for the coup was not borne out of its method, style and results. The coup hastened the collapse of Nigeria. From independence to January 1966, the country had been in a serious turmoil; but the coup put her in an even greater situation. Most of the coup planners were of Eastern origin, thus the Northerners in particular saw it as a deliberate plan to eliminate the political heavy weights in the North in order to pave way for the Easterners to take over the leadership role from them. The sky high praises of the coup and apparent relief given by it in the south came to a sudden end when the succeeding Military Government of Major Gen. J.T.U. Aguiyi Ironsi, an Easterner, unfolded its plans. If Ironsi had displayed a greater sensitivity to the thinking of the Northerners, he could have capitalized on the relief that immediately followed the coup. Military Governors were appointed to oversee the administration of the regions. In the North the numbed favorable reaction in certain quarters turned to studied silence and a "wait and see" attitude. This gradually changed to resentment, culminating in the May 1966 riots throughout the North during which most Easterners residing in the North were attacked and killed. The buildup of anger among the northerners took on 3 dimensions.
1) Tribal- the northerners and the Igbo’s had ongoing disputes. The domination of the Igbo’s in the retail trade jobs in the north angered the northerners.
2) Revenge- northerners remembered the easterners as the people who killed their spiritual leader, the Sarduna of Sokoto and would thus jump at any opportunity to avenge his death.
3) Economic-easterners wanted to change the policy of sharing the national income that existed to that of a policy of deprivation. This was because the bulk of the national income came from the east through the discovery of oil. The easterners argued that their water bodies had been depleted in the exploitation of the oil. Hence, they had to compensate the easterners.
The Northern military officers staged a counter coup on 29 July 1966 with two aims: revenge on the East, and a break up of the country. But the wise counsel of dedicated Nigerians, interested and well-disposed foreigners prevailed. The Head of State, Maj. Gen Aguiyi Ironsi and many other senior officers of Eastern origin were killed. After three anxious days of fear, doubts and non-government, Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon, at the time the most senior officer of Northern origin and then the Chief of Staff, Nigerian Army, emerged as the new Nigerian political leader. Gowon was a compromise candidate since he was a Christian and a Northerner. The lack of planning and the revengeful intentions of the second coup manifested itself in the chaos, confusion and the scale of unnecessary killings of the Easterners throughout the country. Even the authors of the coup could not stem the general lawlessness and disorder, the senseless looting and killing that spread through the North like wild fire on 29 September 1966. Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon, the then Head of State, in a broadcast to the people of the North in September said; "I receive complaints daily that up till now Easterners living in the North are being killed and molested and their property looted. It appears that it is going beyond reason and is now at a point of recklessness and irresponsibility." Before then, in an effort to stop the killings and to preserve the nation in one form or the other, an ad hoc conference of the representatives of the regions was called on 9 August 1966 in Lagos and the meeting came up with a number of recommendations.
The first recommendation was implemented on 13 August 1966. Troops of Eastern Nigeria origin serving elsewhere in the country were officially and formally released and posted to Enugu, the capital of Eastern Region, while troops of non-Eastern origin in Enugu moved to Kaduna and Lagos. This marked the beginning of division and disunity within the rank and file of the Nigerian Armed Forces. 16This simple and seemingly innocuous action broke the last thread and split the last institution symbolizing Nigeria's nationhood and cohesion, which had been regularly tampered with by the politicians since 1962. Most of the civilian of Eastern Region origin who had never lived in the East and would have continued to live elsewhere in the country lost confidence and moved to the East. Some of them when they arrived at their destination became refugees in their own country.
None of the other recommendations was fully implemented except nullification of the unification decree. The political leaders of Western Region relentlessly pursued the implementation of the recommendation with regards to the posting of troops to barracks within their region of origin after the exercise had been completed in the Eastern Region. They were afraid of the so - allied Northern troops domination and probably of the safety of the troops of Western Region origin. With the troops of Eastern Region back in Enugu and the non-Eastern troops withdrawn from there, with Nigerians of non-Eastern origin driven out of the East in their own interest, and with Easterners at home and abroad returning home with news of Nigerian's brutality against them, and with the oil flowing in the Eastern Region, the way was now open for the implementation of the secession. The East and the North began a virulent of words through their radios and newspapers. Early in 1967, a peace negotiating meeting of the Supreme Military Council of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the Eastern Region Military Governor, Lt. Col. Ojukwu was called under the auspices of Gen. Ankrah of Ghana in Aburi, Ghana. Different versions of what happened in Aburi were released by Ojukwu in the East and by the Federal Military Government in Lagos. Ojukwu accused the Federal Government of bad faith and going back on promises. The Federal Government accused Ojukwu of distortion and half-truths. Not surprisingly, Ojukwu completely rejected the decree signed at Aburi. All efforts to intervene by eminent Nigerians and well - wishers to Nigeria like Gen. Ankrah, late Emperor Hallie Selassie of Ethiopia and the late Dr Martin Luther King proved abortive. The flurry of conciliatory meetings achieved nothing.
As early as 7 June 1966, after the May incident in the North, Ojukwu was quoted as saying: “We are finished with the Federation. It is all a question of time." Ojukwu seized the Federal Government property and funds in the East. He planned the hijacking of a National commercial aircraft Fokker 27 on a schedule flight from Benin to Lagos. All these and other signs and reports convinced the Federal Military Government of Ojukwu's intention to 17secede. Lt Col. Yakubu Gowon, the Head of Federal Government, imposed a total blockade of the East. It was realized that more stringent action had to be taken to weaken support for Ojukwu and to forestall his secession bid. Short of military action at that time, creation of States by decree was the only weapon ready to hand. The initial plan was to create States in the Eastern Region only. Such action was considered impolitic and fraught with danger. Eventually 12 States were created throughout the country on 27 May 1967. The Eastern Region was divided into three states. The reaction from Enugu was sharp and quick: the declaration of Eastern Nigeria as the independent sovereign state of "Biafra” on 30 May 1967. 18The federal government for three main reasons rejected this. This was partly due to patriotism, partly because Nigeria’s oilfields were in Biafra but mostly because minority peoples in each region, who would have lost most if Nigeria disintegrated, provided most of the army and its commander, General Gowon.
19Each side increased its military arsenal and moved troops to the border watching and waiting until the crack of the first bullet at the dawn of 6 July 1967 from the Federal side. The war had started and the dawn of a new history of Nigeria.
CONCLUSION
As a result of the above-elaborated divisions that existed within Nigeria, it can be seen that the British are not wholly to blame for the civil war that occurred. It seems like Nigeria is a victim to the division of Africa among the European powers during then nineteenth century. This is because, as can be seen from the above information, the different tribes that existed in the region now known as Nigeria had previous conflicts and rivalries. They were quite hostile towards each other and had a lot of differences in culture. Rather unfortunately, the colonial powers did not divide up the continent along ethnic lines hence though they were hostile towards each other; the British brought them together by creating the nation now known as Nigeria. Furthermore, it can be seen that the colonial masters worsened the already existing situation by forcing the hostile states to come together with nothing in common apart from the name of their country. The British therefore compounded the already existing divisions that existed between the different tribes. As a result of the deepening of the already existing divisions, the stage was set for the civil war. The Nigerians could also be blamed to an extent for the breakout of then war. The ethnic problems that existed in Nigeria were not unique to them. A similar situation occurred throughout the continent. However, they failed to produce a leader who could unite them at independence. Other countries produced leaders, who despite the deep ethnic divisions managed to unite the country for example, Ghana under Kwame Nkrumah. Their leaders were however, based on tribal divisions. This also was a contributing factor to the eruption of the war.
WORD COUNT: 3,898
SOURCE EVALUATION
Peter Calvocoressi-World politics since 1945,
Peter Calvocoressi is a renowned historian on twentieth century world history. He also a historian of distinction in the field of international relations. The source is one of the most comprehensive and up-to-date analyses of world history since the Second World War. Since this is the sixth edition, it is the most recent book and had access to new sources which were available..
Norman Lowe- Mastering Modern World History,
Norman Lowe is a respected historian on the major topics of world history. The source was produced as a textbook for schools and colleges and also an introduction for a higher-level study of the subject. He had access to a variety of new information especially since the civil war was a recent one. Taking all this into consideration, the source is reliable.
Alexander A. Madiebo The Nigerian Revolution and The Biafran War,
Rtd Major General Alexander A. Madiebo was the commander of the Biafran army. The source was produced as an eyewitness account of the civil war in Biafra. As a result of it being written by a participant in a way his conclusions are sometimes subjective.
Bibliography
PUBLISHED SOURCES
1) Calvocoressi, Peter, World politics since 1945, 6th edition, Longman publishing, New York, The United States of America, 1991.
2) Heater, Derek, Case Studies in Twentieth-Century World history, Longman Inc., New York, The United States of America, 1988.
3) Lliffe, John, Africans, The History of a Continent, University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1995.
4) Lowe, Norman, Mastering Modern World History, 2nd edition, The Macmillan press limited, China, 1988
5) Madiebo, A.A., The Nigerian Revolution and The Biafran War, Fourth Dimension Publishing, Nigeria 1980.
-
Oliver Roland and Atmore, Africa since 1800, 4th edition, University Press Cambridge, Great Britain, 1996.
INTERNET SOURCES
1) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/AAA.htm (August 2003)
Madiebo, A.A., The Nigerian Revolution and The Biafran War, Fourth Dimension Publishing, Nigeria 1980. P 3
Http:/www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/AAA.htm P 3 (August 2003)
-
Calvocoressi, Peter, World politics since 1945, 6th edition, Longman publishing, New York, The United States of America, 1991. P 509
6 Http:/www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/AAA.htm P 3
8 Heater, Derek, Case Studies in Twentieth-Century World history, Longman Group UK Limited, 1988. P 109
9 Http:/www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/AAA.htm P 4
10 Lowe, Norman, Mastering Modern World History, 2nd edition, The Macmillan press limited, 1988 P 469
11 Http:/www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/AAA.htm P 4
12 Oliver, Roland and Atmore, Africa since 1800, Cambridge University Press, 1996. P 270
14 Calvocoressi, Peter, World politics since 1945, 6th edition, Long group U.K limited, 1991 P 510
15 Http:/www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/AAA.htm P 5
18 Lliffe, John, Africans, The History of a Continent, Cambridge University Press, 1995. P258