It becomes extremely difficult to set out to write about issues with historical vestiges, as it is often a huge task to get the reader to see through an unbiased lens without drawing his or her intimate bigotry or pre-existing historical notion about a particular subject matter (that is taking sides before critically analyzing and understanding the subject, especially on issues that draw coldly from the lintels of ethno-religious doors that has shaped our modern history. I am compelled regularly, to present unbiased essays on diverse issues, but in making it worthwhile, the discipline of the writer often plays a remarkably role in presenting a systemic analysis of a particular subject matter, devoid of political insinuations but crammed with facts from the sands of time, especially where antipathy to political correctness is an embraced virtue. I humbly ask readers who are either victims of the “elite’s historical oppression”, which releases negative or positive waves, to listen to the apprehension that rocks the heart of Nigeria and judge for yourself whether the conclusions drawn therewith are justified.
Interestingly, it has been a significant practice amongst Nigerians (biographers, contributors and autobiographers) to detail gullible authors to write supposedly history books for posterity, wherein they write concoction of fallacies to absolve themselves from their past errors, or claim (assume) unmerited victory rather than nobly own up to their mistakes to guide future leaders. On the other hand, the reverse trend lately is to refute, accounts in books during book launch or presentation, in other to discredit the accounts or generate controversies enough to put the subject matter in issue, some of which are commendable when lies are published, but the gullible victims becomes the unborn.
To begin, one draws caution from the Colonial Government Report (CGR) of 1947, “The African’s background and outlook on public morality is very different from that of the present day Briton.” The question of how does one give credible accounts of historical facts becomes a subject that requires both, vast research, reading, logic, critically examination and recreation of the times of the said event and sometimes one is left in the winter roads of discovery to wander.
One significant clause in the Aburi Agreement that has reared its head amongst many others is “that legislative and executive authority of the Federal Military Government was to remain in the Supreme Military Council (SMC), to which any decision affecting the whole country shall be referred for determination provided it is possible for a meeting to be held, and the matter requiring determination must be referred to military Governors for their comment and concurrence”
The above expression is clear and befits at the time the political situation of the country. It literally means, that the decision making process in the government does not reside in one individual but in a body as described above. Whereas, decisions reached or affecting the whole country must or “shall” be referred to the body for their comment and “concurrence”. Where a particular region fails to concur, it inevitably means it disagrees with such proposition and would definitely not be bound except a more convenient plan is fashioned out to accommodate her interest.
Irrespective of whatever term that has been coined or implied from the above, “confederation” “power to Veto”, which is evidently unwritten, it remarkably seemed to be the only solution that would accommodate the mistrusts and horrific events that had played prior to the Accord.
This is well encapsulated by the words of Adewale Ademoyega in his book “Why We Struck” being the only member of the 15th January 1966 coup who wrote the first hand account of the whole action, he noted thus at page 186 “ …Ojukwu had scored all his points at the meeting. ‘If Gowon were to be faithful to the resolutions,’ the Nigeria (–Biafra) Civil War might have been averted. But as ‘usual’ with him, as soon as Gowon stepped down in Lagos, he gave his ears to the Federal Civil Servants and to his Northern masters, who advised him that he had conceded too much to Ojukwu. There and then, he was prepared to dishonor “his own word” and “break the terms” of the Aburi Agreement. Thus, before the Decree No.8 could be finally issued on March 17, 1967, it had to be passed by the Supreme Military Council (SMC) meeting which sat in Benin on March 10. But Ojukwu did not attend that meeting because he had earlier rejected the draft of that Decree which made a mockery of the Aburi resolutions. The really offending clauses of the decree were Sections 70 and 71 which empowered the SMC to declare a state of emergency in Nigeria, if the Head of the Federal Military Government (FMG) and at least three of the Governors agreed to do so. Section 71 also empowered the Head of the FMG in agreement with at least three of the Governors to legislate for any particular region whenever they deemed it fit during a state of emergency, with or without the consent of the Governor of that particular region. In effect, Gowon had thus taken power unto himself to deal with Ojukwu whenever he pleased, how he pleased and as long as he pleased”
The argument credited to Gowon that Ojukwu misinterpreted the Accord, or that Odemegwu travelled to Nigeria before him after the Accord to give his own version, with due respect is nothing but a fallacy, and can be likened to a guise to re-write history.
The question remains what stopped Gowon from observing strictly the terms of the Aburi Accord? Why was he so concerned with the interpretation than the observance? As the full implementation and observance of the accord without tampering it would not have raised Ojukwu’s repeated broadcast of the video and audio clips of the Aburi meeting through the Eastern Nigeria Broadcasting Service. As historical records would have it, Odemegwu came with a mission to end the further pogrom committed against the people of old Eastern Nigeria. There couldn’t have been a better time to be serious and prepared with leadership, than in those periods, to vilify Ojukwu’s representation and preparedness would be to condone negligence or unpreparedness on the part of Gowon and his Team, observing the fact that no pressure nor causalities were been conveyed on Gowon’s side.
The Aburi Accord failed solely as a result of Yakubu Gowon’s infidelity to the strict observance and implementation of the Accord without further deliberation, in addition to his failure to exhibit genuine exemplary leadership by asking for renegotiation if he felt he had been out smarted, which practically wasn’t the case, as the issue that ought to be paramount is the safety of the citizens and stability of the State, than a leaders proclivity for central power, it would have been noble than hiding under spurious comments to acknowledge his youthful errors and advocate for a system of Government that would accommodate all ethnic groups and religions linings in other to end the contemporary feud in Nigeria.
The Nigeria-Biafran Civil War would have been averted as its trigger became the failure of the “Aburi Accord to Stand”. Majority of historians, even those being acquiescingly misleading themselves and their readers by the personality of both actors which can be rightly differentiated from the written agreements, admitted quite unexpectedly that Gowon on the stance of the Aburi Accord had to be held responsible for the failure of the Accord and the collateral succession. Nigeria haven been strained by crisis, the thread of allegedly unity needed a single mishap and Gowon was unexpectedly but readily available to offer same. In the words of Ademoyega ‘…He had been hurled into the saddle of power by forces that were greater than himself, he did not claim to have control over those forces….He was simply an instrument of fate and time. Once in the saddle, he did not pretend to be wiser than his colleagues. He did not pretend to have answers to the problem of the nations…he was conscious that other Nigerians had a part to play in the scheme of things and allowed them to have a say..” With Aburi Accord a lot would have been prevented, a lot would have been mended, the quest for material possession in this case Oil, confused many, made the good bad, made the bad ugly, and ultimately distorted where their allegiance should lie. This error has shaped the Nigeria of today.
All this crisis here and there may have been averted.
Nigeria needs to be Politically Restructured to accommodate all ethnic groups and put an end to all killings.
Disclaimer: The above examination seeks to pick errors in leadership to guide future actions. It is neither a means to demonize or adulate any individual, whether living or dead. Therefore all proposition, comments and analysis are drawn solely on the premise of Aburi Accord and actions leading thereto.
Thank you.
Chijioke Ifediora
Culled from https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10207889322092385&id=1276115998
Cc: Henry Chibuike Ugwu, Idiki Kuku, Joe Onugwu, Emeka E Odidika, Ifediora Ugo Emmanuel, Udegbunam John Oluchukwu, Ikechukwu Emeka Onyia, Joseph Nwabunwanne Cee Udenwa Marie Fred Uche Gozie.
No comments:
Post a Comment