Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Nigerian Chapter) Vol. 4, No. 1, 2016 www.arabianjbmr.com BIAFRA: WHY IGBO WANT TO SECEDE Isa Ishaq Ojibara Department of Political Science, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria Abstract The Nigeria civil war (1967-1970) provoked by declaration of Biafra republic had indelible imprint on Nigeria state. The post war efforts for disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of the Igbo secessionist into the post civil war Nigeria through the (3Rs) policy of rehabilitation, reconstruction and reconciliation (the 3Rs) to promote national unity and nationalism have failed to yield desire result. In recent times, specifically in post 2015 general election, there have been new waves of agitations for the Biafra republic by both Movement for Actualisation of Sovereign State of Biafra and Indigenous People of Biafra on one hand and for Niger Delta republic by Niger Delta Avengers on the other, added to terrorism and militancy that are already threatening Nigeria fragile state. The calls for restructuring have been louder particularly from the southern part of Nigeria. Keywords: Civil war, Secession, Self-determination, Nationalism and Restructuring 1 Introduction Nigeria has had an unusual susceptibility to civil war –most populous country in Africa, one of the most diverse countries of the world (both in ethnicity and religion) and with a substantial proportion of its export earnings from crude oil (Collier and Hoeffler, 2002:1-37, Fearon and Laitin, 2006: 1-26). According to (Fearon and Laitin, 2006) these are some of the indicators that determine if a country would go into a civil war in a particular period of time, specifically during the earliest period of independence years (1-4years). Hence, the Nigeria civil war (1967-1970) also refers to the Nigeria-Biafra war didn’t in any way came as a surprise because the possibilities of a civil war onset had been with the Nigeria state since independence or amalgamation of 1914. The events that sparked the outbreak of the civil war could be located in a cobweb of factors ranging from the remote which includes but not limited to the military coup d’état of January 15, the counter coup of July 29, 1966,other remote factors are the regional election crisis in Western Nigeria in 1965; the Tiv riots of 1964; the Federal Elections of 1964; the killing of the Igbos living in Northern Nigeria from May to September 1966 (Cervenka, 1972; Oyeweso, 1992); the structural Imbalance of the Nigerian federation; and, most importantly, the asymmetrical distribution of power among the various ethnic and geopolitical groups (Ojo, 2009:146, Adeleke, 2008). Ever since the end of Nigeria civil war provoked by the declaration of Biafra republic by Major General Odumegwu Ojukwu, the Nigeria state has been making effort for disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of the Igbo secessionist into the post civil war Nigeria through 53 Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Nigerian Chapter) Vol. 4, No. 1, 2016 the (3Rs) policy of rehabilitation, reconstruction and reconciliation (the 3Rs) to promote national unity and nationalism (Ojeleye, 2010). However, it seems all the mechanism and policies of federal government for national unity like the National Youth Service Corp, unity schools, federal character, National sport festival, Catchment Area etc have little or no effect on national integration. The increasing rates of post civil war ethno religious violence, kidnapping, high rate of thievery, economic sabotage through pipeline vandalism, militancy, and most recently terrorism are threatening the existence of Nigeria; the federal government over the years has maintained that the country unity is not negotiable. The Non-Negotiability of Nigeria unity was again stressed by former president, Goodluck Jonathan during his opening speech at the 2014 confab as a “no go area”. The agitation for Biafra independence has once again surfaced and on the increase after the 2015 general elections. The United Nations in its common country analysis for 2016 revealed a deeply divided society on the basis of plurality of ethnic, religious and regional identities and gloomy economic woes (Opejobi, 2016). It is on this regard this paper attempts to examine the Nigeria- Biafra war and unravel Biafra attempted secession, its imprint on Nigeria state and the new waves of agitations. 1.1 Theoretical Framework: Secession The term secession is many times used in the context of self-determination and dissolution (Mavric, 2012:17). Though these words are interconnected but they are by no means synonymous. Secession maybe defined as follows: Secession is the process by which a group seeks to separate itself from the state to which it belongs, and to create a new state on part of the territory of that state. It is not a consensual process and thus needs to be distinguished from the process by which a state confers independence on a particular territory by legislative or other means, a process which may be referred to as devolution or grant of independence. Secession is essentially a unilateral process (Crawford, 1997). There is a need to emphasize four important points from the above definition. First, secession can only be carried out by a group of people and not individual. Since, there is no one man state, individual secession does not arise. Secondly, there must be territorial connectedness among the group trying to secede. Another feature from the above definition is the fact establishing the voice (Mavric, 2012:17) of exit of a particular group. Lastly, a forceful declaration of independence by a group of people without dialogue and consent or what (Mavric, 2012) refers to as unilateral process. The doctrine of self-determination appeared in the eighteenth century upon which a new order emerges. Intrinsically linked with the idea of democracy, self determination was to correct the arbitrariness and injustices of dynasties rule. In theory, self-determination could be said to refer to the practice by which individuals freely express their political will by choosing their own government and, at this stage, reference to nationalism appears by no means necessary (Jacquin, 1999). The meaning and application of principle of self determination has evolved in international relations. The French revolution, American Revolution, the dissolution of the German, Austro- Hungarian and Ottoman empires, decolonization of former Spanish Latin-American empires, Asia and Africa, the two world wars and the emergence of international organizations like League of Nations and United Nations, and the provisions in international law as it relate to the right of minorities has since changed the applicability of self determination. Thus self – determination has both internal and external dimensions. In other words, National self 54 Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Nigerian Chapter) Vol. 4, No. 1, 2016 determination is a theory of secession. The struggle for independence by nationalists’ in Africa and other colonized territories redefined the concept of self determination to decolonization from European control and thus the right of self-determination was thus confined in its expression and secession appeared to be henceforth restricted (Jacquin, 1999). Another concept that is directly related to secession is dissolution: Dissolution may be triggered by secession or attempted secession of a part of the state (ibid). However, if the process involves a general withdrawal of all or most of the territories concerned, and no substantial central of federal component remains behind, it may be evident that the predecessor state as a whole ceased to exist (Crawford, 2005). When the process of secession is completed the newly created state forms a new legal and political unit, whereas the state where the part seceded from, i.e. the rump state retains its government, legal and political identity minus the withdrawn part (Mavric, 2012). We can deduce that the three concepts are not mutually exclusive, for instance, since must secessionists hinged their claimed for a new independent state, whether from colonial control or a part of a sovereign state on national self determination, and secession of different parts (units) that make a central government may lead to the state to cease to exist (dissolution). Thus: National self determination Secession Dissolution Secession is at the centre of the other two concepts for the following reasons. First, while separatists always base their demands on national self determination, the end which they want to achieve is an independent state (secession) i.e. national self determination is a means to an end. The relationship between the two concepts is transitory. The relationship between secession and dissolution depends on whether the secession of units from an independent state leads to the total or complete collapse of the state. For example, the collapse of former USSR into 15 independent states, the dissolution of Czechoslovakia into two independent republics of Czech and Slovakia and the dissolution of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), into Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, however, after Eritrea seceded from Ethiopia, the remaining territories still continue as Ethiopia. Same as South Sudan from Sudan, as such secession don’t lead to dissolution. 2. Theories of Secession The theories of secession can be group into two broad categories. The first is primary right theories which view secession as a right of group of people to vote to secede. The two theories under this category are that of national self-determination theory and choice or plebiscitary theory. The second is derivative right theories which view secession as a measure to justified consequence of past mistreatment of the group by the state mass and permanent violation of basic human right unlawful incorporation into the state, violation of intra-state autonomy agreement, and violation of public realization of equality of democratic state (Mavric, 2012:23). 2.1 National Self-Determination Theory The theory opined that different nations (in a multination state) have the right to secede.