IBB Resuscitates Debate on the Nigerian Civil War
Nearly six decades after the first military coup in Nigeria, which culminated in the Nigerian Civil War, former military leader General Ibrahim Babangida has reignited discussions about the conflict in his recently released book, *Journey in Service*. Babangida, who styled himself as “president” during his regime, challenges the widely held narrative that the 1966 coup was an “Igbo coup,” a label he attributes to strategic framing by Western media.
In the book, Babangida lists the names of the coup plotters, the casualties, the officers who foiled the coup, and the proposed head of state, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, arguing that the coup was not ethnically motivated. His perspective carries significant weight given his background: he hails from Northern Nigeria, the region most affected by the coup; he served in the Nigerian Army during the war, fighting against Biafra; and he later became a military head of state who participated in multiple coups.
Babangida further contends that the civil war was not caused by Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, the then-governor of the Eastern Region, but by Yakubu Gowon’s failure to protect the lives and property of Igbos in the North. This failure, he argues, forced Ojukwu to declare the secession of the Eastern Region in May 1967 after the Aburi Accord, brokered in Ghana, was breached by Gowon.
The issues that precipitated the civil war—ethnic injustice, disregard for human life, and systemic inequality—remain unresolved in Nigeria today. Babangida’s reflections highlight the enduring consequences of these failures. For instance, the massacre of between 50,000 and 100,000 Igbos in 1966, which Gowon failed to prevent, was met with silence or justification from other regions, emboldening further violence. Similarly, Gowon’s refusal to honor the Aburi Accord demonstrated a lack of good faith, exacerbating tensions.
Babangida’s own legacy is not without controversy. His annulment of the June 12, 1993, election, widely believed to have been won by Chief MKO Abiola, led to widespread unrest and the deaths of many, including Abiola and his wife, Kudirat. This act of injustice underscores a recurring theme in Nigerian history: the cyclical nature of oppression and retaliation.
The civil war was not merely a military conflict but a culmination of deep-seated grievances. The retaliatory killings of Igbos in the North, coupled with the failure to hold perpetrators accountable, created a climate of impunity that persists to this day. Babangida’s account suggests that the war could have been avoided if the North had limited its retaliation to military targets rather than targeting civilians.
Ojukwu’s reluctance to declare the Republic of Biafra, despite mounting pressure, reflects the personal and political complexities of the time. As the son of one of Nigeria’s wealthiest men, Ojukwu faced immense pressure to protect his family’s investments, which were largely outside Igboland. His eventual decision to secede was driven by the dire circumstances faced by his people, a testament to the gravity of the situation.
The failure to address past injustices has perpetuated a cycle of violence in Nigeria. From the killings of Jews in Europe to the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia, history shows that accountability is essential for reconciliation. In Nigeria, however, perpetrators of ethnic and religious violence often escape justice, emboldening future acts of brutality.
Babangida’s intervention is a call to confront Nigeria’s painful history and address the systemic issues that continue to plague the nation. Injustice, whether against the Igbos in 1966, the Ogoni people in the 1990s, or the victims of Boko Haram and Fulani herdsmen today, must be condemned unequivocally. As Martin Niemöller famously warned, silence in the face of injustice makes us complicit and leaves us vulnerable when our turn comes.
Nigeria’s progress depends on its ability to transcend ethnic and religious divisions, uphold the rule of law, and ensure justice for all. Until then, the nation will remain a “potential giant,” perpetually stunted by the wounds of its past.
